Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 13:24 -0800, David Lang wrote:

> I don't think you are understanding the proposal
> 
You're probably right. :-)

> 2.6.11.y will be released as 2.6.12 is being developed.
> 
> once 2.6.12 is released (or shortly after that if 2.6.12 ends up being a 
> _real_ mess) 2.6.11.y will not get any additional releases (2.6.12.y will 
> get released instead)
> 
> as a result there will be no backports at all. if you want a feature 
> that's introduced in 2.6.12 then you wait until you get a 2.6.12.y release 
> that's good enough for you.
> 
I understand the no backports.  That's a good thing.  That's what I was
trying to state (but was probably too long winded!).  Lets see if this
is what I believe is being proposed.

2.6.x would be the release with some number of features added.

2.6.x.y would include bug fixes only, that are under the strong rule of
Linus to only be things that crash/hang the machine or nasty security
exploits.

2.6.x+1 would be 2.6.x.(some y) also including features (from -rc or
-mm)

2.6.x.z (where z is greater than the above "some y") only include the
same level of fixes as with 2.6.x.y, with the parallel work of 2.6.x+1
still going on.  

Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

> also I think the expectation is that there aren't going to be more then 
> 2-3 2.6.x.y releases so your comment of people waiting until y>5 won't 
> apply
> 

Say after 2.6.x.3 has been released and 2.6.x+1 is now out, and someone
finds a rare race condition that hangs the machine.  A 2.6.x.4 would not
be released?  Actually, the >5 was pretty pointless anyway.  What I got
from talking to people is that they wanted a release that only got fixes
that would crash the machine, or cause a root exploit. That's what I
thought Linus was trying to say.

-- Steve