On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 05:41:55PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 8/6/20 5:08 PM, Billy Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 04:46:13PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 8/6/20 4:17 PM, Billy Wilson wrote: > >>> A table lists the 5.2 stable release date as September 15, but it was > >>> released on July 7. This may confuse a reader who is trying to > >>> understand the stable update release cycle. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Billy Wilson <billy_wilson@xxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/process/2.Process.rst | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst b/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst > >>> index 3588f48841eb..4ae1e0f600c1 100644 > >>> --- a/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst > >>> +++ b/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst > >>> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ than one development cycle past their initial release. So, for example, the > >>> 5.2 kernel's history looked like this (all dates in 2019): > >>> > >>> ============== =============================== > >>> - September 15 5.2 stable release > >>> + July 7 5.2 stable release > >>> July 14 5.2.1 > >>> July 21 5.2.2 > >>> July 26 5.2.3 > >> > >> Hi, > >> For clarification, what 5.2 kernel do you find that was released on > >> July 7, 2019? IOW, what you consider the 5.2 stable release of that date? > >> or where did you get that date? > >> > >> thanks. > >> > >> -- > >> ~Randy > >> > > > > I found the date of July 7 at https://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_5.2 . I > > just double checked that date against the git tag for v5.2 (commit > > 0ecfebd2b524) and it looks like it matches. > > OK, that part makes sense (to me). > > > September 15, meanwhile, is the 5.3 stable release date. I mainly > > noticed this because the table uses the 5.2 release dates to illustrate > > the stable update release cycle. I was scratching my head for a few > > minutes trying to figure out why 5.2 had a date of September 15 and > > 5.2.1 had a date of July 14, until I realized it was a mistake. > > I had 2 questions. One was why not July 8 instead of July 7, > but you answered that part satisfactorily (above). (July 8 is when > the tarball and .sign files are dated.) > > The other question is do we call v5.2 stable? Or should we begin > stable at v5.2.1? > > > thanks. > -- > ~Randy > That's a good question. This same page describes the cycle of -rc kernels as, "a normal series will get up to somewhere between -rc6 and -rc9 before the kernel is considered to be sufficiently stable and the final release is made." In that context, I had read "stable" as in sufficiently stable, not as "released by the stable team." The author also did well at introducing the stable tree shortly after that. "Once a stable release is made, its ongoing maintenance is passed off to the 'stable team.'" Personally, I think those clarifications make it okay to call v5.2 stable in this particular table. But there could be nuances with that choice that I am missing.
