Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Paul Dickson
2005-03-03T17:42:12Z

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:21:38 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds wrote:

> The reason I put a shorter timeframe on the "all-even" kernel is because I
> don't want developers to be too itchy and sitting on stuff for too long if
> they did something slightly bigger. In theory, the longer the better
> there, but in practice this release numbering is still nothing but a hint
> of the _intent_ of the developers - it's still not a guarantee of "we
> fixed all bugs", and anybody who expects that (and tries to avoid all odd
> release entirely) is just setting himself up for not testing - and thus
> bugs.
>
> Comments?

You still haven't solved the problem of only a small group using the
development kernels. Until a "stable" kernel is released, the majority
of kernel compilers will avoid any development kernel (even on this
mailing list!).

Two suggestions (one or both could be implemented):

How about appointing maintainers for 2.6.N kernels, whose responsibility
is apply stability and security patches for 3 months AND until 2.6.N+3 is
released. So a series of 2.6.11.M kernels will appear until 2.6.14 and
2.6.11 is at least 3 months old. This would given kernel developers
experience with such releases, but without the job being for the life of
the developer.

Also, add a list to the kernel.org web page about which kernels are
considered stable. Listed stable kernels are those who have been
released for at least two weeks.

-Paul