From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756923AbYELTs3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 15:48:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751521AbYELTsV (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 15:48:21 -0400 Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.162]:9460 "EHLO mo-p00-ob.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751162AbYELTsU (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2008 15:48:20 -0400 X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 X-RZG-AUTH: jclyXLBJ10ZHTmMMskdeEV9K+qamm4K24+0GzTHYHnheuzKtvddXf0g5IDpOVsJr Message-ID: <48289F00.9010406@hartkopp.net> Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 21:48:16 +0200 From: Oliver Hartkopp User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14 (Windows/20071210) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. Peter Anvin" CC: Romano Giannetti , Linus Torvalds , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel naming convention in the merge phase References: <4818F093.3070105@hartkopp.net> <4819050C.9060800@zytor.com> <48198873.7030503@hartkopp.net> <481A06C0.6070500@zytor.com> <1210163964.14371.1.camel@localhost> <48282C69.2070006@hartkopp.net> <48286364.7010107@zytor.com> <48288E4E.3080107@hartkopp.net> <48289C59.5040401@zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <48289C59.5040401@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >> H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>> Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes - this was also my intention. I don't have any preferences if >>>> the first commit after a release is named -merge or -rc0. But it >>>> should point out that we're leaving the former stable release. >>>> >>> >>> Either way it'll take a bunch of work. >> >> Can you give any details? >> >> Why does tagging a -rc0 create any effort for anyone - except half a >> minute for Linus? >> > > Because it breaks all the robots which rely on the kernel naming scheme. > This is no real detail. How can -rc0 break a naming scheme for a robot, when -rc1 doesn't? Btw. you don't seem to have any interest in my suggestion and obviously Linus, Greg and Andrew also do not have any interest in something like a -rc0. So i won't create any new noise about that topic from my side. Thanks anyway, Oliver