Re: Enough with the ad-hoc naming schemes, please

[Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 11:38:07AM -0700, cliff white wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:08:51 -0500
> Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Linus,
> > 
> > I can't help but notice you've broken all the tools that rely on a
> > stable naming scheme TWICE in the span of LESS THAN ONE POINT RELEASE.
> > 
> > In both cases, this could have been avoided by using Marcello's 2.4
> > naming scheme. It's very simple: when you think something is "final",
> > you call it a "release candidate" and tag it "-rcX". If it works out,
> > you rename it _unmodified_ and everyone can trust that it hasn't
> > broken again in the interval. If it's not "final" and you're accepting
> > more than bugfixes, you call it a "pre-release" and tag it "-pre".
> > Then developers and testers and automated tools all know what to
> > expect.
> 
> Speaking for OSDL's automated testing team, we second this motion. 

<aol>me too</aol>  I've already made some representations to Linus
in private, and now I'm actively queueing up patches which have been
sitting around since the start of -rc1.  I, for one, no longer believe
in any naming scheme associated with mainline.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 PCMCIA      - http://pcmcia.arm.linux.org.uk/
                 2.6 Serial core