[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910061909.35878.elendil@planet.nl>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:09:34 +0200
From: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: mingo@...e.hu, hohndel@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And what people are suggesting with a 2.6.32-rc0 would just lead to
> people now rebasing their work NOT EVEN ON A RELEASE. They'd want to
> rebase it on top of that made-up commit (2.6.32-rc0), so now from a
> development standpoint that commit suddenly becomes more important than
> the release itself.
IMO you're looking at this from the wrong side: the developer PoV. The
request is made from a *user* PoV.
Users very simply want to avoid that they accidentally install a merge
window kernel over their stable kernel. IMO that makes sense.
Developers are supposed to be able to take care of themselves; the mainline
tree should aim to make things easy for users.
I see the release versions purely as reference points. And -rc0 is
obviously useless from that perspective, which is why it should be just a
Makefile thing and not a tag. But -rc0 is IMO very useful to distinguish
what kernels someone has installed.
BTW, including the commit number in the version string has a major
disadvantage: kernels will get installed *alongside* eachother instead of
the newer kernel replacing the older one. Result is that /boot partitions
fill up much more quickly.
Cheers,
FJP
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists