Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs)

Krzysztof Halasa
2004-07-29T01:24:10Z

Ben Hoskings <ben@jeeves.gotdns.org> writes:

> I think the idea of forking off certain releases in the 2.6.x.0 form, to only
> recieve bugfixes and security updates, is a very good idea. A couple of
> points against it were raised above, but I think if it were approached the
> right way, they wouldn't be issues.

I think so.

I assume the numbering will stay the same, i.e.
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 8
EXTRAVERSION =-rc2

will eventually become
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 8
EXTRAVERSION =

and then possibly

VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 8
EXTRAVERSION =.1 (or -pl1 etc.)

so it won't require changing scripts.

> IMO the process wouldn't mirror the old 2.x / 2.y model because it is much
> more fine-grained. With the old model, changes have to be backported to a
> kernel that is significantly older, and which potentially has seen
> fundamental changes in the releases between (i mean between 2.x -> 2.y).

I think so. The scheme is somehow similar to -AC (Alan Cox') tree -
and we all know that it (the process etc) was working very well.
--
Krzysztof Halasa