Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Greg KH
2005-03-03T17:22:27Z

On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:04:43AM -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:23:39AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >>So what's the problem with this approach? It would seem to make everybody
> >>happy: it would reduce my load, it would give people the alternate "2.6.x
> >>base kernel plus fixes only" parallell track, and it would _not_ have the
> >>testability issue (because I think a lot of people would be happy to test
> >>that tree, and if it was always based on the last 2.6.x release, there
> >>would be no issues.
> >>
> >>Anybody?
> >
> >
> >Well, I'm one person who has said that this would be a very tough
> >problem to solve. And hey, I like tough problems, so I'll volunteer to
> >start this. If I burn out, I'll take the responsibility of finding
> >someone else to take it over.
> >
> >I really like the rules you've outlined, that makes it almost possible
> >to achieve sanity.
> >
>
> How does what Linus outlined differ from splitting to 2.7?

- Each 2.6.x.y series would be abandanded after the next 2.6.x release
came out.
- There would be no big development fork.

Those are two ways this differs.

> All that aside... why not make the "sucker tree" a breeding ground for new
> kernel hackers.

Have you looked into the kernel-janitor project? That's the best
"breeding" ground around for people who want to learn the kernel
development process. I highly recommend that.

I don't think this "stable/bugfix" release series would be a good place
for new hackers, as most first bugfixes are of the janitorial type,
which would not be accepted into such a release tree.

thanks,

greg k-h