* Jeff Garzik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > 1) There is no clear, CONSISTENT point where "bugfixes only" begins. > Right now, it could be -rc2, -rc3, -rc4... who knows. > > We need to send a clear signal to users "this is when you can really > start hammering it." A signal that does not change from release to > release. A signal that does not require intimate knowledge of the > kernel devel process. > > This is a key reason why we don't get more pre-release testing. > > 2) After 2.6.11 release is out, there is no established process for "oh > shit, 2.6.11 users will really want that fixed." > > -------------------- > > Linus's even/odd proposal is an example of a solution for problem #2, as > is my 2.6.X.Y proposal. > > The 2.4.x series -pre/-rc is an example of a solution for problem #1.
This is exactly how I see it as well. Guess we drank the same koolaid ;-) I don't see the reluctance to use -pre/-rc since that's already what we're doing (just poorly encoded in -rc$x). Also, .x.y does require some release discipline, there may be cases where the .x.y fix should be much simpler than .x+1-pre/rc fix (as in Greg's comment that fixes may include basic API changes). thanks, -chris - 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/
