Reconsider dropping "-final" EXTRAVERSION from 2.6.9 release

Reconsider dropping "-final" EXTRAVERSION from 2.6.9 release

[Ian E. Morgan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 834 bytes --]

I hope other people with influence will speak up on this matter.

I seems like each new kernel in recent times is introducing new release
methodology (the whole "2.6.8.1" fiasco is still fresh in all our minds). Is
the "-final" EXTRAVERSION really necessary?

Thankfully, 2.6.9-final is still in the testing tree. It is my hopes that it
will actually be released as "2.6.9". That's always been good enough.

Linus says "Let's try the 2.4.x release methodology."  The "2.4.x release
methodology" was to change a "Foo-rcX" to a final "Foo" release with no
changes. I see no evidence that any 2.4 kernel (or _any_ Linux kernel) was
ever released as "Foo-final". It may be OK to _call_ it a "final" version
when referring to it, but adding "-final" to the EXTRAVERSION field is just
aggravating and redundant.

My 2¢.

Regards,
Ian Morgan

Re: Reconsider dropping "-final" EXTRAVERSION from 2.6.9 release

[Alan Cox]

On Sad, 2004-10-16 at 18:33, Ian E. Morgan wrote:
> Thankfully, 2.6.9-final is still in the testing tree. It is my hopes that it
> will actually be released as "2.6.9". That's always been good enough.

The -final tree doesn't seem to have anything to deal with O_DIRECT on
memory mapped video/af_packet/oss-audio files to start with, so it
doesn't look good enough to me, unless I missed a cunning fix elsewhere.