On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:45:23 +0800 Zenghui Yu <zenghuiyu96@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As linux-5.0 is coming up soon, the howto.rst document can be > updated for the new kernel version. Change all 4.x references > to 5.x now. > > Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <zenghuiyu96@xxxxxxxxx> Overall: I think there's value in having the docs reflect current numbers, though it would be better if the docs as a whole were kept current at the same time. howto.rst hasn't been updated yet, so this attention is welcome - thanks for taking a look at it. That said, I really think we can do a little better. > Documentation/process/howto.rst | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/howto.rst b/Documentation/process/howto.rst > index f16242b..19001e2 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/howto.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/howto.rst > @@ -235,16 +235,16 @@ Linux kernel development process currently consists of a few different > main kernel "branches" and lots of different subsystem-specific kernel > branches. These different branches are: > > - - main 4.x kernel tree > - - 4.x.y -stable kernel tree > + - main 5.x kernel tree > + - 5.x.y -stable kernel tree > - subsystem specific kernel trees and patches > - - the 4.x -next kernel tree for integration tests > + - the 5.x -next kernel tree for integration tests One thing I think we can do is to simply get rid of version numbers in a lot of places and make this process easier when 6.x comes around. What this is really trying to say is that we have: - Linus's mainline tree - Various stable trees with multiple major numbers - Subsystem-specific trees - linux-next If we could rework this along those lines, it will more accurately reflect reality and not require updating next time. > -4.x kernel tree > +5.x kernel tree > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -4.x kernels are maintained by Linus Torvalds, and can be found on > -https://kernel.org in the pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/ directory. Its development > +5.x kernels are maintained by Linus Torvalds, and can be found on > +https://kernel.org in the pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/ directory. Its development > process is as follows: And here too I think we can just say "mainline" and that they can be found at https://kernel.org/ or in the repo. > - As soon as a new kernel is released a two weeks window is open, > @@ -277,21 +277,21 @@ mailing list about kernel releases: > released according to perceived bug status, not according to a > preconceived timeline."* > > -4.x.y -stable kernel tree > +5.x.y -stable kernel tree > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Kernels with 3-part versions are -stable kernels. They contain > relatively small and critical fixes for security problems or significant > -regressions discovered in a given 4.x kernel. > +regressions discovered in a given 5.x kernel. Here too, especially since most of the outstanding stable kernels won't be 5.x for a long time. > This is the recommended branch for users who want the most recent stable > kernel and are not interested in helping test development/experimental > versions. > > -If no 4.x.y kernel is available, then the highest numbered 4.x > +If no 5.x.y kernel is available, then the highest numbered 5.x > kernel is the current stable kernel. ...and this, I believe, is misleading at best. I'd just take that sentence out. > -4.x.y are maintained by the "stable" team <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, and > +5.x.y are maintained by the "stable" team <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, and > are released as needs dictate. The normal release period is approximately > two weeks, but it can be longer if there are no pressing problems. A > security-related problem, instead, can cause a release to happen almost > @@ -326,10 +326,10 @@ revisions to it, and maintainers can mark patches as under review, > accepted, or rejected. Most of these patchwork sites are listed at > https://patchwork.kernel.org/. > > -4.x -next kernel tree for integration tests > +5.x -next kernel tree for integration tests > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -Before updates from subsystem trees are merged into the mainline 4.x > +Before updates from subsystem trees are merged into the mainline 5.x > tree, they need to be integration-tested. For this purpose, a special > testing repository exists into which virtually all subsystem trees are > pulled on an almost daily basis: linux-next is called "linux-next"; we should just use that name. So what do you think? Can we maybe get a version that removes most (or all) of the explicit version numbers from this file? Thanks, jon
