On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 08:42:18PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig 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
Many, many companies seem to find it logical. If you want to squeeze
a version in between "1" and "2".
Further, other kernel hackers suggested the 2.4.20.N sequence,
I simply agreed with it. So it's not only me who thinks this way :)
> 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
Human nature says that will drag out the -pre tree ad infinitum.
Suppose a 2.4.21 is released today, with 2.4.20 + bug fixes. Now,
tomorrow, another "critical bug" comes out, and then the -pre tree
becomes 2.4.23-pre. Add another critical bug, and I hope you see
the continual delay of -pre happens here...
The basic logic is "do not disrupt current plans. Do something
_in addition to_ current plans."
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 22:00:32 EST