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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
