Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jun 1999 11:14:04 +1000 | From | Dancer <> | Subject | Re: Linux versioning scheme |
| |
Ramana Juvvadi wrote:
> Brian <signal@shreve.net> writes: > > > Coudln't the "incomplete or experiemental" sections of 2.2.x kernels > > already be considered Beta? I mean, I think the beta channel already > > exists in the current versioning system. > > > > brian > > > > That is good for identifying which parts of the linux kernel are beta > ( or alpha quality). I am talking about a stamp of approval > from the kernel developers for the overall kernel. Right > now there are only 2 labels -- Development and Stable. I am > taking about refining it a bit more-- development, beta and > stable. At least with the 2.2 series, I think distribution makers > (Redhat, Suse, and possibly others) jumped in too early. At > the risk of sounding bureaucratic, let me suggest a scheme. > I think we should wait for x days ( a week, 10 days pick > your choice) before a beta version is declared stable. > > Of course, you can argue that users can a set a rule for > themselves. It just make the life of users a little easier > if the software itself gives more information about its quality.
We _do_ make our own rules about stability. For example, according to mine, 2.2.7-ac2 is the only 'stable' kernel after 2.0.36, and then not for our production targets.
I don't much mind if there are bugs in subsystems I don't use, but crashes/wedges/reboots/data-loss/corruption in subsystems I _do_ use lead me to brand it unstable. Not unreasonable, I should think.
D
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |