On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 10:03:21PM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
> >>I know how it's done, it's just that in my eyes a stable release is the
> >>one where you know there's only 1 .... A 2.95.4 package built on
> >>different days (from CVS) will differ. A 2.95.4 package built on
> >>different ways from a .tar.gz marked as 'release' will not differ.
> >>
> >>For instance chasing a kernel bug is difficult when 1 person might use 1
> >>version of a compiler and another uses a different version when both
> >>says 2.95.4, no matter how miniscule the difference.
> >>
> >
> >Since patches are being applied to the 2.95 branch at a rate of about
> >one a month, I think the date stamp in the version number should be
> >quite sufficient to avoid any problems along these lines.
>
> If it's tested and rock stable, why isn't it released?
It would be silly to generate a new 2.95.x point release every time we
fix a bug - most of them are minor, affect very few people, and the
fixes will get picked up by the distros anyway.
There probably will be a 2.95.4 official release at some point,
but again I'm not aware of any current plans.
zw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 07 2001 - 21:00:27 EST