Re: Release Policy [was: Linux 2.4.16 ]

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

David Weinehall wrote:

>>
>>Oh, and yes, if you settle on a naming scheme, *please* let me know
>>ahead of time so I can update the scripts to track it, rather than
>>finding out by having hundreds of complaints in my mailbox...
>>
> 
> I for one used the -pre and -pre-final naming for the v2.0.39-series,
> and I'll probably use the same naming for the final pre-patch of
> v2.0.40, _unless_ there's some sort of agreement on another naming 
> scheme. I'd be perfectly content with using the -rc naming for the
> final instead. The important thing is not the naming itself, but
> consistency between the different kernel-trees.
> 


Consistency is a Very Good Thing[TM] (says the one who tries to teach
scripts to understand the naming.)  The advantage with the -rc naming is
that it avoids the -pre5, -pre6, -pre-final, -pre-final-really,
-pre-final-really-i-mean-it-this-time phenomenon when the release
candidate wasn't quite worthy, you just go -rc1, -rc2, -rc3.  There is no
shame in needing more than one release candidate.

	-hpa