Messages in this thread | | | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: Release of 2.4.21 | Date | Fri, 21 Mar 2003 00:13:00 +0000 (GMT) |
| |
> > > 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.
Why can't we just make all releases smaller and more frequent?
Why do we need 2.4.x-pre at all, anyway - why can't we just test things in the -[a-z][a-z] trees, and _start_ with -rc1?
Why can't we just do bugfixes for 2.4, and speed up 2.5 development?
John. - 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/
| |