From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9662A6B0011 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 14:55:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 11:55:27 -0700 (PDT) From: david@lang.hm Subject: Re: (Short?) merge window reminder In-Reply-To: <20110524183405.GA14493@citd.de> Message-ID: References: <20110523192056.GC23629@elte.hu> <20110524183405.GA14493@citd.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matthias Schniedermeyer Cc: Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, DRI , linux-fsdevel , linux-mm , Andrew Morton , Greg KH 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 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, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org