Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Thomas Gleixner
2005-03-04T08:21:27Z

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. You need testers for release candidates to
make them stable. The problem is that Linux release candidates are not
release candidates.

> 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).

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

> 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.

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

> 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.

2.6.11-rc5 (which is -pre5 in disguise) would have been the real point
for a -rc1 ...-rcX freeze and testing phase.

tglx