linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:59:59 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 08:25:55 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> > A suggestion from the department of evil ideas: Call even cycles
> > development odd ones stabilizing. Nothing gets into an odd one without a
> > review and linux-kernel signoff/ack ?
> 
> I don't think that's an evil idea, and in fact we've discussed it before. 
> I personally like it - right now we tend to have that "interminable series 
> of -rc<n>" (where <n> is 3..) before release, and I'd almost personally 
> prefer to just have a rule that is more along the lines of
> 
>  - 2.6.<odd> is "the big initial merges with all the obvious fixes to make 
>    it all work" (ie roughly the current -rc2 or perhaps -rc3).
> 
>  - 2.6.<even> is "no big merges, just careful fixes" (ie the current "real 
>    release")
> 
> Each would be ~3 weeks, leaving us with effectively the same real release 
> schedule, just a naming change.
> 
> That said, I think Andrew was of the opinion that it doesn't really _fix_ 
> anything, and he may well be right. What's the point of the odd release, 
> if the weekly snapshots after that are supposed to be strictly better than 
> it anyway?
> 
> So I think I may like it just because it _seems_ to combine the good 
> features of both the old naming scheme and the current one, but I suspect 
> Andrew may be right in that it doesn't _really_ change anything, deep 
> down.
> 

Again, before we can implement anything we should describe what problem we are
actually trying to solve here.

Jeff: "I want faster release cycles because <no reason given>"

Me: "I want less bugs"

Anyone else?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/