Re: The naming wars continue...

[Con Kolivas]

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 03:05:13PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > And the fact is, I can't see the point. I'll just call it all "-rcX",
> > because I (very obviously) have no clue where the cut-over-point from
> > "pre" to "rc" is, or (even more painfully obviously) where it will become
> > the final next release.
>
>
> This should be easy: the cut-over should be when you're tempted to
> rename it 2.6.next. If you have no intention (or hope) of renaming
> 2.6.x-rc1 to 2.6.x, it is not a "release candidate" by definition.
>
> What's the point? It serves as a signal that a) we're not accepting
> more big changes b) we think it's ready for primetime and needs
> serious QA c) when 2.6.next gets released, the _exact code_ has gone
> through a test cycle and we can have some confidence that there won't
> be any nasty 0-day bugs when we go to install 2.6.next on a production
> machine.

I have this feeling Linus is laughing at us when he debates these 
arguments. Nonetheless I finally feel obliged to say a "release 
candidate" is a release candidate. It should only be called that if it 
is planned to be the real version, and the real version is _exactly_ the 
same bar the version number. If it isn't even planned to be released 
unmodified it's a -pre patch.

/me still hears Linus laughing. He's only been doing this for 13 years.

Cheers,
Con

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature