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

Jason Cooper
2004-07-23T00:39:27Z

Andrew Morton (akpm@osdl.org) scribbled:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
> > There's much worth in having a very stable kernel. Many people use for
> > different reasons self-compiled ftp.kernel.org kernels.

I have to agree with Adrian, the first thing I always do with a new
distro is rip out the kernel and drop in a vanilla from kernel.org.
I've been biten too many times by distro kernels. :(

> I wouldn't be averse to releasing a 2.6.20.1 which is purely stability
> fixes against 2.6.20 if there is demand for it. Anyone who really cares
> about stability of kernel.org kernels won't be deploying 2.6.20 within a
> few weeks of its release anyway, so by the time they doodle over to
> kernel.org they'll find 2.6.20.2 or whatever.

imho, I feel there are two main concerns with changing the development
model:

1.) Need to have readily identifiable stable versions w/o
following lkml.
2.) Understanding the changing of version numbers in light of
this change of strategy.

Ideas:

wrt (1), I think the -rc? system would be simplest. 2.6.20 is stable,
2.6.20-rc3 is not.

wrt (2), assuming the naming stays the same:

major++ = major overhaul of core system.
minor++ = overhaul to drivers (or subset thereof).
patch++ = testing patches survived, appear stable.
extra++ = next set of testing patches applied.

Sure, this would mean version numbers start to creap up, but nothing is
stopping a kernel version 2.11.x (what?! where's my 3.0.1? We were
definitely supposed to have a 3.0 around here somewhere... Where's my
meds? *frowns*).

tia,

Cooper.