Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Thomas Gleixner
2005-03-03T20:04:24Z

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:37 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > It still does not solve the problem of "untested" releases. Users will
> > still ignore the linus-tree-rcX kernels.
>
> .. and maybe that problem is unsolvable. People certainly argued
> vehemently that anything we do to try to make test releases (renaming etc)
> won't help.

It wont help, if you keep it in the development line. If you move it out
of the development line into the "other tree" then it is likely to be
accepted as _real_ release candidates which get a proper testing
coverage before declaring it stable release nr. XYZ.

Users _are_ scared off by the current release quality. Your model is
ignoring this part of the problem and just provides a pacifier gimmick.

> So part of the idea of having the "other tree" is that it ends up solving
> the "hmm, we missed that detail" problem. And by _not_ giving it release
> numbers or any schedule at all, people can't _wait_ for it.

After the _stable_ release, of course no schedule and release numbers
are necessary. The proposed scheme will work nicely.

> Sneaky. That's my middle name.
>
> Linus

People are clever enough to debunk sneaky gimmicks.

tglx