Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Chris Wright
2005-03-03T16:19:39Z

* Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@pobox.com) wrote:
> 1) There is no clear, CONSISTENT point where "bugfixes only" begins.
> Right now, it could be -rc2, -rc3, -rc4... who knows.
>
> We need to send a clear signal to users "this is when you can really
> start hammering it." A signal that does not change from release to
> release. A signal that does not require intimate knowledge of the
> kernel devel process.
>
> This is a key reason why we don't get more pre-release testing.
>
> 2) After 2.6.11 release is out, there is no established process for "oh
> shit, 2.6.11 users will really want that fixed."
>
> --------------------
>
> Linus's even/odd proposal is an example of a solution for problem #2, as
> is my 2.6.X.Y proposal.
>
> The 2.4.x series -pre/-rc is an example of a solution for problem #1.

This is exactly how I see it as well. Guess we drank the same koolaid ;-)
I don't see the reluctance to use -pre/-rc since that's already what
we're doing (just poorly encoded in -rc$x). Also, .x.y does require
some release discipline, there may be cases where the .x.y fix should be
much simpler than .x+1-pre/rc fix (as in Greg's comment that fixes may
include basic API changes).

thanks,
-chris