On Tue, 24 May 2011, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On 23.05.2011 13:33, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I really hope there's also a voice that tells you to wait until .42 before
cutting 3.0.0! :-)
So I'm toying with 3.0 (and in that case, it really would be "3.0",
not "3.0.0" - the stable team would get the third digit rather than
the fourth one.
What about strictly 3 part versions? Just add a .0.
3.0.0 - Release Kernel 3.0
3.0.1 - Stable 1
3.0.2 - Stable 2
3.1.0 - Release Kernel 3.1
3.1.1 - Stable 1
...
Biggest problem is likely version phobics that get pimples when they see
trailing zeros. ;-)
since there are always issues discovered with a new kernel is released
(which is why the -stable kernels exist), being wary of .0 kernels is not
neccessarily a bad thing.
I still think a date based approach would be the best.
since people are worried about not knowing when a final release will
happen, base the date on when the merge window opened or closed (always
known at the time of the first -rc kernel)
in the thread on lwn, people pointed out that the latest 2.6.32 kernel
would still be a 2009.12.X which doesn't reflect the fact that it was
released this month. My suggestion for that is to make the X be the number
of months (or years.months if you don't like large month values) between
the merge window and the release of the -stable release. This would lead
to a small problem when there are multiple -stable releases in a month,
but since that doesn't last very long I don't see a real problem with just
incramenting the month into the future in those cases.
David Lang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
