Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Jul 1996 15:02:07 +0200 (SAT) | From | Mike Kilburn <> | Subject | Re: This is really Ridiculous |
| |
> > I also think that the version numbering scheme is inadequate. When > > there are bug fixes applied to 2.0.N, the new version doesn't deserve to > > be 2.0.N+1 right away. It should be 2.0.N+1.beta for a few days first. > > I only can second that :-)
I think the basic problem is that 2.0 was released to soon and the last code freeze was not really a code freeze. Its always been my experience that changing a *single* line of code in a production release requires careful consideration and plenty of beta testing. Linux development operates in a different manner so Linus and others cant really do that but maybe we could put together a test suite - done by different beta testers each with there different equipment and setups. We could design the tests to test each of the kernel subsystems. New versions could be marked beta until they pass all the tests. This wont catch all problems but it seems some of the problems since the last 1.99.x kernel could have been caught this way. I know no one has the time to organize such a scheme but if ever they do I will be willing to beta test because I tend to run the latest kernel on my LAN at home. Anyway, it looks like the big distibution makers are not pressing their new 2.0 based CDs yet so we wont end up with bad versions of distributions floating around. This is important because its easy for me to tell someone "get the latest xxx CD and just install" rather than "get the latest xxx CD and install and then download kernel patch xxx and compile and dont run xxx until thats been done" , when they hear the latter they tend to want to wait.
| |