On 8/6/20 8:51 PM, Billy Wilson wrote: > 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. OK, so if a kernel release is not an -rc, then it's stable. I guess I'm OK with that. Thanks for your explanations. -- ~Randy
