Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 20 Mar 2003 17:55:32 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: Release of 2.4.21 |
| |
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:34:07PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > For critical fixes, release a 2.4.20.1, 2.4.20.2, etc. Don't disrupt > > the 2.4.21-pre cycle, that would be less productive than just patching > > 2.4.20 and rolling a separate release off of that. > > I think the naming is illogical. If there's a bugfix-only release > it whould have normal incremental numbers. So if marcelo want's > it he should clone a tree of at 2.4.20, apply the essential patches > and bump the version number in the normal 2.4 tree to 2.4.22-pre1
No point in making things too complex. 2.4.20-post1 is something people can easily understand.
I needed that for the ext3 problems which popped up shortly after 2.4.20 was released - I was reduced to asking people to download fixes from my web page.
And having a -post stream may allow us to be a bit more adventurous in the -pre stream.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |