From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22482C433E0 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 03:51:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098A22177B for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 03:51:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726078AbgHGDvy (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 23:51:54 -0400 Received: from agw1.byu.edu ([128.187.16.185]:50986 "EHLO agw1.byu.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726489AbgHGDvy (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 23:51:54 -0400 Received: from cangw3.byu.edu (cangw3.byu.edu [10.18.21.143]) by agw1.byu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CABB1813A; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:51:53 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mail2.fsl.byu.edu (mail2.rc.byu.edu [128.187.49.32]) by cangw3.byu.edu (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-8) with ESMTPS id 0773posG014177 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:51:50 -0600 Received: from imjin (unknown [166.70.219.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail2.fsl.byu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0212D3F2D9; Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:51:49 -0600 (MDT) Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 21:51:48 -0600 From: Billy Wilson To: Randy Dunlap Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: Correct the release date of 5.2 stable Message-ID: <20200807035148.GB7953@imjin> References: <20200806231754.7735-1-billy_wilson@byu.edu> <84f3c886-7ade-5870-22a0-6cef2735c19b@infradead.org> <20200807000823.GA7953@imjin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score -1, tokens from: Outbound, byu-edu:default, base:default, @@RPTN) X-CanIt-Geo: ip=128.187.49.32; country=US; region=Utah; city=Provo; latitude=40.2329; longitude=-111.6688; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=40.2329,-111.6688&z=6 X-CanItPRO-Stream: byu-edu:Outbound (inherits from byu-edu:default,base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: 0a3crPOuh - babd0343e318 - 20200806 X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org 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 > >>> --- > >>> 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.