>>>>For critical fixes, release a 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, etc. Don't disrupt
>>>>the 2.4.21-pre cycle, that would be less productive than just patching
>>>>2.4.20 and rolling a separate release off of that.
>>>I think the naming is illogical. If there's a bugfix-only release
>>>it whould have normal incremental numbers. So if marcelo want's
>>>it he should clone a tree of at 2.4.20, apply the essential patches
>>>and bump the version number in the normal 2.4 tree to 2.4.22-pre1
>>No point in making things too complex. 2.4.20-post1 is something people can
>>I needed that for the ext3 problems which popped up shortly after 2.4.20 was
>>released - I was reduced to asking people to download fixes from my web page.
>>And having a -post stream may allow us to be a bit more adventurous in the
>Why can't we just make all releases smaller and more frequent?
>Why do we need 2.4.x-pre at all, anyway - why can't we just test
>things in the -[a-z][a-z] trees, and _start_ with -rc1?
>Why can't we just do bugfixes for 2.4, and speed up 2.5 development?
That would imply some changes could take place in a short cycle. This
is not true for things like major ide subsystem updates.
-- There is no such thing as obsolete hardware. Merely hardware that other people don't want. (The Second Rule of Hardware Acquisition) Sam Flory <email@example.com>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/