Re: [PATCH] docs: Correct the release date of 5.2 stable

[Billy Wilson <billy_wilson@byu.edu>]

On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 05:41:55PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 8/6/20 5:08 PM, Billy Wilson wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 04:46:13PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >> On 8/6/20 4:17 PM, Billy Wilson wrote:
> >>> A table lists the 5.2 stable release date as September 15, but it was
> >>> released on July 7. This may confuse a reader who is trying to
> >>> understand the stable update release cycle.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Billy Wilson <billy_wilson@byu.edu>
> >>> ---
> >>>  Documentation/process/2.Process.rst | 2 +-
> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst b/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst
> >>> index 3588f48841eb..4ae1e0f600c1 100644
> >>> --- a/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst
> >>> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ than one development cycle past their initial release. So, for example, the
> >>>  5.2 kernel's history looked like this (all dates in 2019):
> >>>  
> >>>  	==============  ===============================
> >>> -	September 15 	5.2 stable release
> >>> +	July 7		5.2 stable release
> >>>  	July 14		5.2.1
> >>>  	July 21		5.2.2
> >>>  	July 26		5.2.3
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >> For clarification, what 5.2 kernel do you find that was released on
> >> July 7, 2019?  IOW, what you consider the 5.2 stable release of that date?
> >> or where did you get that date?
> >>
> >> thanks.
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> ~Randy
> >>
> > 
> > I found the date of July 7 at https://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_5.2 . I
> > just double checked that date against the git tag for v5.2 (commit
> > 0ecfebd2b524) and it looks like it matches.
> 
> OK, that part makes sense (to me).
> 
> > September 15, meanwhile, is the 5.3 stable release date. I mainly
> > noticed this because the table uses the 5.2 release dates to illustrate
> > the stable update release cycle. I was scratching my head for a few
> > minutes trying to figure out why 5.2 had a date of September 15 and
> > 5.2.1 had a date of July 14, until I realized it was a mistake.
> 
> I had 2 questions. One was why not July 8 instead of July 7,
> but you answered that part satisfactorily (above).  (July 8 is when
> the tarball and .sign files are dated.)
> 
> The other question is do we call v5.2 stable?  Or should we begin
> stable at v5.2.1?
> 
> 
> thanks.
> -- 
> ~Randy
> 

That's a good question. This same page describes the cycle of -rc
kernels as, "a normal series will get up to somewhere between -rc6 and
-rc9 before the kernel is considered to be sufficiently stable and the
final release is made."

In that context, I had read "stable" as in sufficiently stable, not as
"released by the stable team."

The author also did well at introducing the stable tree shortly after
that. "Once a stable release is made, its ongoing maintenance is passed
off to the 'stable team.'"

Personally, I think those clarifications make it okay to call v5.2
stable in this particular table. But there could be nuances with that
choice that I am missing.