Re: Release of 2.4.21

Andrew Morton
2003-03-20T23:41:08Z

Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:34:07PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > For critical fixes, release a 2.4.20.1, 2.4.20.2, etc. Don't disrupt
> > the 2.4.21-pre cycle, that would be less productive than just patching
> > 2.4.20 and rolling a separate release off of that.
>
> I think the naming is illogical. If there's a bugfix-only release
> it whould have normal incremental numbers. So if marcelo want's
> it he should clone a tree of at 2.4.20, apply the essential patches
> and bump the version number in the normal 2.4 tree to 2.4.22-pre1

No point in making things too complex. 2.4.20-post1 is something people can
easily understand.

I needed that for the ext3 problems which popped up shortly after 2.4.20 was
released - I was reduced to asking people to download fixes from my web page.

And having a -post stream may allow us to be a bit more adventurous in the
-pre stream.