On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:18:09 +0200 Luis de Bethencourt <luis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Here's a set of changes updating Documentation/development-process. > I have update kernel releases. I'm not convinced that the kernel version examples need to be updated all that often - but I don't see that it hurts anything either. One thing, though: > @@ -65,19 +66,18 @@ will get up to somewhere between -rc6 and -rc9 > before the kernel is > considered to be sufficiently stable and the final 2.6.x release is made. > At that point the whole process starts over again. > > -As an example, here is how the 2.6.38 development cycle went (all dates in > +As an example, here is how the 2.6.39 development cycle went (all dates in > 2011): A more useful exercise would have been to update things for the post-2.6 era; there will be no more "final 2.6.x" releases. Would you be interested in cleaning up that kind of stuff? Otherwise I guess I'll get to it eventually. One other thing: > -for example, the 2.6.36 kernel's history looked like: > +for example, the 2.6.38 kernel's history looked like: > > - October 10 2.6.36 stable release > - November 22 2.6.36.1 > - December 9 2.6.36.2 > - January 7 2.6.36.3 > - February 17 2.6.36.4 > + March 14 2.6.38 stable release > + March 23 2.6.38.1 > + March 27 2.6.38.2 > + April 14 2.6.38.3 > + April 21 2.6.38.4 > + May 2 2.6.38.5 > + May 9 2.6.38.6 > + May 21 2.6.38.7 > + June 3 2.6.38.8 > > 2.6.36.4 was the final stable update for the 2.6.36 release. Here you took out the 2.6.34.x stable updates, but left that last sentence as a sort of dangling reference. If we really need to pull this forward, let's do the whole job. Thanks, jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
