Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 21:30 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > You cannot have it both ways. Either the kernel needs testers, or it is > > "stable". See how these are opposites? > > I don't see a contradiction.
There is a *direct* contradition, but it's not important. > I don't see that the releases are stable. They are defined stable by > proclamation. If they were stable we'd release the darn things! *obviously* -rc kernels are expected to still have problems. -rc just means "please start testing", not "deploy me on your corporate database server". People are smart enough to know that -rc3 will be less buggy than -rc1. And if they're worried about bugs then why are they running -rc's at all? > This 2.6.x.y tree will change nothing as long as the underlying problem > is not solved. What underlying problem? The fact that -rc1 comes a bit too early? Spare me, that's just a nothing. Anyone who is testing -rc kernels knows the score. That being said, yes, I agree that we should use 2.4-style -pre and -rc. But changing the names of things won't change anything. > > It won't help that at all. None of these proposals will increase testing > > of tip-of-tree. In fact the 2.6.x proposal may decrease that level of > > that testing, although probably not much. > > There is no complete answer to all of this, because there are competing > > needs. It's a question of balance. > > A clearly defined switch from -preX to -rc will give the avarage user a > clear sign where he might jump in and test. The average user has learnt "rc1 == pre1". I don't expect that it matters much at all. - 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/
