Re: Linux versioning scheme
CaT (cat@zip.com.au)
Thu, 24 Jun 1999 00:33:43 +1000
On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 08:52:19AM -0400, Horst von Brand wrote:
> CaT <cat@zip.com.au> said:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 1999 at 02:28:49PM -0400, Ramana Juvvadi wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > This strategy has served us very well in the past, but I do think
> > > there is a need for a change. At present, the code evolves in
> > > two branches -- development (odd number) and stable (even number).
> > > I think we should at least split it into three branches --
> > > development, beta, and stable.
> > >
> > > Development --- kernel developers only
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> [...]
>
> > Anyhow, AFAIK there ARE 3 branches. the 3rd is kinda shourtlived though:
>
> ???
>
> I count at least half a dozen:
>
> Stable (2.2)
> Beta (2.3)
> Alpha (testing)
Each testing branch dies with each beta release, each beta branch dies with
each stable release. As such the 3rd (alpha) is kinda shortlived. It's only
alive for however long it takes to release a beta and then a new branch is
started.
If the last pre release of a beta continued directly to the first pre
release of the next beta this wouldn't be so but AFAIK it makes a hop
directly to beta and then back to alpha again, thereby killing and
restarting the branch.
Oh. And that's 3 branches and not half a dozen. ;)
Hope that made sense. :)
--
CaT (cat@zip.com.au) URL: http://zipper.zip.com.au/dev/null
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/