Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs) | From | Krzysztof Halasa <> | Date | Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:22:15 +0200 |
| |
Ben Hoskings <ben@jeeves.gotdns.org> writes:
> I think the idea of forking off certain releases in the 2.6.x.0 form, to only > recieve bugfixes and security updates, is a very good idea. A couple of > points against it were raised above, but I think if it were approached the > right way, they wouldn't be issues.
I think so.
I assume the numbering will stay the same, i.e. VERSION = 2 PATCHLEVEL = 6 SUBLEVEL = 8 EXTRAVERSION =-rc2
will eventually become VERSION = 2 PATCHLEVEL = 6 SUBLEVEL = 8 EXTRAVERSION =
and then possibly
VERSION = 2 PATCHLEVEL = 6 SUBLEVEL = 8 EXTRAVERSION =.1 (or -pl1 etc.)
so it won't require changing scripts.
> IMO the process wouldn't mirror the old 2.x / 2.y model because it is much > more fine-grained. With the old model, changes have to be backported to a > kernel that is significantly older, and which potentially has seen > fundamental changes in the releases between (i mean between 2.x -> 2.y).
I think so. The scheme is somehow similar to -AC (Alan Cox') tree - and we all know that it (the process etc) was working very well. -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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/
| |