Re: Release of 2.4.21

[John Bradford]

> > > For critical fixes, release a 2.4.20.1, 2.4.20.2, 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
> easily understand.
> 
> 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
> -pre stream.

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?

John.