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: <20110724083126.29166727@bike.lwn.net>
Date:	Sun, 24 Jul 2011 08:31:26 -0600
From:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:	Luis de Bethencourt <luis@...ethencourt.com>
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.

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: 

> @@ -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.

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.

Thanks,

jon
--
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/