Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

David Greaves
2005-03-03T15:01:17Z

Matt Mackall wrote:

>On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
>>This is an idea that has been brewing for some time: Andrew has mentioned
>>it a couple of times, I've talked to some people about it, and today Davem
>>sent a suggestion along similar lines to me for 2.6.12.
>>
>>Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that we used to
>>do on a minor number basis, and instead of dropping it entirely like we
>>did, we could have just moved it to the release number, as an indication
>>of what was the intent of the release.
>>
>>
>
>One last plea for the 2.4 scheme:
>
> a) all the crazy stuff goes in 2.6.x-preN, which ends up being
> equivalent to 2.6.<odd> and friends in your scheme
> b) bugfixes only in 2.6.x-rcN, which ends up being equivalent to
> 2.6.<even>-* in your scheme.
> c) 2.6.x is always 2.6.x-rc<last> with just a version number change[1]
>
>This has some nice features:
>
> - alternates as rapidly as you want between stable and development
> - no brown paper bag bugs sneaking in between -rc<last> and 2.6.x
> - 2.6.* is suitable for all users, 2.6.*-rc* is suitable for almost
> all users
> - it's already in use for 2.4 and people are happy with it
>
>
>

I understand that :)
(and if 2.6.y+1-preX appeared before 2.6.y then that wouldn't be too
confusing)
(neither would 2.6.y.1 as an 'oops' in the human sense)

--Joe User.

Who's scared to risk his personally valuable data on a
2.6.x-pre<anything> - but will install, lets see, hmm, -rc2 or above :)
(I suppose the more paranoid I get, the higher the watermark I set on -rcX)

(I'm lying since I'm running a -mm on my server but that's only because
I helped track down an XFS/nfsd bug!)