Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Greg KH
2005-03-03T17:08:18Z

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:00:39PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:43:53AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:23:39AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > So what's the problem with this approach? It would seem to make everybody
> > > happy: it would reduce my load, it would give people the alternate "2.6.x
> > > base kernel plus fixes only" parallell track, and it would _not_ have the
> > > testability issue (because I think a lot of people would be happy to test
> > > that tree, and if it was always based on the last 2.6.x release, there
> > > would be no issues.
> > >
> > > Anybody?
> >
> > Well, I'm one person who has said that this would be a very tough
> > problem to solve. And hey, I like tough problems, so I'll volunteer to
> > start this. If I burn out, I'll take the responsibility of finding
> > someone else to take it over.
>
> Ooh, a sucker!

Two of us even :)

> Seriously, I think Linus's plan makes a lot of sense, as a scalable
> way of maintaining a 2.6.x.y release strategy.

I agree, and if Chris and I share the load, it might even make it a bit
more robust in that we can cover for each other when one is traveling,
etc.

> The other thing which would probably be useful to maintain would be a
> list of "known regressions" yet to be fixed in 2.6.x.y, and to address
> the somewhat disturbing assertions that sometimes regressions "light
> up bugzilla" at distro's like Fedora, but don't get reflected back up
> to LKML. Maybe we could recruit some other sucker to maintain such a
> list?

That would be great, and any help from the distro bug-wranglers would be
appreciated.

thanks,

greg k-h