Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Andrew Morton
2005-03-04T05:31:35Z

Jochen Striepe <jochen@tolot.escape.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 03 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 2.6.x is making good progress but there have been a handful of prominent
> > regressions which seem to be making people think that the whole process is
> > bust. I don't believe that this has been proven yet.
>
> Sorry -- what you (with the vision of a kernel developer) are seeing
> here surely is interesting, but it's not the point:
>
> The point is what the *users* think. Just in case it still hasn't been
> made clear enough in this thread: If your user base gets the impression
> the development process isn't reliable any longer, you won't get your
> kernel tested as much as you want.

You cannot have it both ways. Either the kernel needs testers, or it is
"stable". See how these are opposites?

We don't _need_ people to test stable kernels, because they're stable.
(OK, we'll pick up on a few things, but we'd pick up on them if people were
testing tip-of-tree, as well).

The 2.6.x.y thing is a service to people who want 2.6.x with kinks ironed
out. It's not particularly interesting or useful from a development POV,
apart from its potential to attract a few people who are presently stuck on
2.4 or 2.6.crufty.

>
> So I hope the latest proposal really helps making releases contain fewer
> surprises.
>

It won't help that at all. None of these proposals will increase testing
of tip-of-tree. In fact the 2.6.x proposal may decrease that level of
that testing, although probably not much.

There is no complete answer to all of this, because there are competing
needs. It's a question of balance.