RE: Kernel release numbering

[Massimo Cetra]

Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that 
> we used to do on a minor number basis, and instead of 
> dropping it entirely like we did, we could have just moved it 
> to the release number, as an indication of what was the 
> intent of the release.

> Comments?

This is surely a good idea because end users (not developers) like me would
have greater possibility not to occur in a regression with an even release.

The real solution to the problem of having a really stable kernel is, IMHO,
to have a wide base of testers.
Usually, following a new stable release announce, lots of bugs get out
because people starts using the new kernel, just because they didn't try any
of the previous -RC releases.

So, why moving from 2.6.14 to 2.6.15 when, in 2/4 weeks, i'll have a more
stable 2.6.16 ? 
Will users help testing an odd release to have a good even release ? Or will
they consider an even release as important as a -RC release ?

My thought is that the community should do some marketing on the actual
developing model to obtain a wider testing base, or, with the new proposed
model, let people know that their help is necessary to have a stable kernel
and they should download, compile and install odd releases.

Sincerely,
 
 Massimo Cetra








-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/