linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: update the development process document.

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]

Message-ID: <CAPA4HGU6EW60w7O5N4qKRrbFa=t6VK3RuC-Apzxb7d4QQ-QU5w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:43:08 +0200
From:	Luis de Bethencourt <luis@...ethencourt.com>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>,
	Andres Salomon <dilinger@...ued.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: update the development process document.

Hi Jonathan :)

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 12:18:09 +0200
> Luis de Bethencourt <luis@...ethencourt.com> wrote:
>
>>     Here's a set of changes updating Documentation/development-process.
>>     I have update kernel releases.
>
> I'm not convinced that the kernel version examples need to be updated all
> that often - but I don't see that it hurts anything either.  One thing,
> though:

I understand, and when I sent the patch I was aware you could have
said you weren't interested.
Should've asked before spending time on it, but then, it wasn't that
much time either.

>
>> @@ -65,19 +66,18 @@ will get up to somewhere between -rc6 and -rc9
>> before the kernel is
>>  considered to be sufficiently stable and the final 2.6.x release is made.
>>  At that point the whole process starts over again.
>>
>> -As an example, here is how the 2.6.38 development cycle went (all dates in
>> +As an example, here is how the 2.6.39 development cycle went (all dates in
>>  2011):
>
> A more useful exercise would have been to update things for the post-2.6
> era; there will be no more "final 2.6.x" releases.  Would you be interested
> in cleaning up that kind of stuff?  Otherwise I guess I'll get to it
> eventually.
>

I can do this. I was reading the file to learn about it myself, so I
can change it once I learn.

> One other thing:
>
>> -for example, the 2.6.36 kernel's history looked like:
>> +for example, the 2.6.38 kernel's history looked like:
>>
>> -     October 10      2.6.36 stable release
>> -     November 22     2.6.36.1
>> -     December 9      2.6.36.2
>> -     January 7       2.6.36.3
>> -     February 17     2.6.36.4
>> +     March 14        2.6.38 stable release
>> +     March 23        2.6.38.1
>> +     March 27        2.6.38.2
>> +     April 14        2.6.38.3
>> +     April 21        2.6.38.4
>> +     May 2           2.6.38.5
>> +     May 9           2.6.38.6
>> +     May 21          2.6.38.7
>> +     June 3          2.6.38.8
>>
>>  2.6.36.4 was the final stable update for the 2.6.36 release.
>
> Here you took out the 2.6.34.x stable updates, but left that last sentence
> as a sort of dangling reference.  If we really need to pull this forward,
> let's do the whole job.
>

Yes, I did this because there hasn't been a final release for 2.6.38 yet.
I will remove this line and update the above mentioned.

> Thanks,
>
> jon
>

No problem, my pleasure :)
Luis
--
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/