On Wednesday 02 March 2005 22:37, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is > > done today. It's sane, understandable and it works. > > No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4.x is a totally > different animal. Namely it doesn't have the kind of active development AT > ALL any more. It _only_ has the "even" number kind of things, and quite > frankly, even those are a lot less than 2.6.x has. > > > 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features > > 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only > > And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we want testing > sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versions. > > That's the whole point here, at least to me. I want to have people test > things out, but it doesn't matter how many -rc kernels I'd do, it just > won't happen. It's not a "real release". > > In contrast, making it a real release, and making it clear that it's a > release in its own right, might actually get people to use it.
It seems to me that the problem is not the numbering scheme. We _will_ experience the same issues no mater what scheme we use... The way I see it is that we need a way to tell how much testing a given release has had. I would suggest an opt outable scheme that records boot (via an email for instance) and asks for comments after a day or two. With this sort of method we would _know_ just how much testing is done. We eventually could start to relate the amount of testing to just how stable the kernel will be. Comments Ed Tomlinson - 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/
