Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Andrew Morton
2005-03-04T08:55:25Z

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 21:30 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > You cannot have it both ways. Either the kernel needs testers, or it is
> > "stable". See how these are opposites?
>
> I don't see a contradiction.

There is a *direct* contradition, but it's not important.

> I don't see that the releases are stable. They are defined stable by
> proclamation.

If they were stable we'd release the darn things! *obviously* -rc kernels
are expected to still have problems.

-rc just means "please start testing", not "deploy me on your corporate
database server".

People are smart enough to know that -rc3 will be less buggy than -rc1.

And if they're worried about bugs then why are they running -rc's at all?

> This 2.6.x.y tree will change nothing as long as the underlying problem
> is not solved.

What underlying problem? The fact that -rc1 comes a bit too early? Spare
me, that's just a nothing. Anyone who is testing -rc kernels knows the
score.

That being said, yes, I agree that we should use 2.4-style -pre and -rc.
But changing the names of things won't change anything.

> > 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.
>
> A clearly defined switch from -preX to -rc will give the avarage user a
> clear sign where he might jump in and test.

The average user has learnt "rc1 == pre1". I don't expect that it matters
much at all.