Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Jeff Garzik
2005-03-03T07:52:58Z

David S. Miller wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:46:22 -0500
> Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If Linus/DaveM really don't like -pre/-rc naming, I think 2.6.x.y is
>>preferable to even/odd.
>
>
> All of these arguments are circular. If people think that even/odd
> will devalue odd releases, guess what 2.6.x.y will do? By that line
> of reasoning nobody will test 2.6.x just the same as they aren't
> testing 2.6.x-rc* right now.

even/odd means that certain releases (even ones) are more magical than
others. That's weird, since users aren't used to that sort of thing in
any other project.

2.6.x.y and 2.6.x-rc [where rc == serious bugfixes only!] are
understandable to users, because they have seen that sort of thing before.

Users _aren't_ fooled by naming games. The current 2.6-rc proves that.

> I think they will test the odd releases, because as a real release
> they will get slashdot/lwn.net/etc. announcements.
>
> That's one of the major things the -rc's don't get. Maybe it gets
> a reference in lwn.net's weekly kernel article, but mostly kernel
> geeks read those and that's not who we want testing -rc's (such
> geeks already are doing so).

LWN, Slashdot and others will not be fooled though :) They will note
that release 2.6.<odd> is not a real release.

> It has to be a "real" release. That does have an impact. However,
> I am ambivalent about how to make them real. Even/odd, 2.6.x.y,
> either is fine with me.

2.6.x.y has a very real engineering benefit: it becomes a stable
release branch. That will encourage even more users to test it, over
and above a simple release naming change.

Users have been clamoring for a stable release branch in any case, as
you see from comments about Alan's -ac and an LKML user's -as kernels.

Jeff