Re: 2.4.x release process comments

[Simon Oosthoek <simon@margo.student.utwente.nl>]

On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 02:11:46PM +0100, Paul Rolland wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> > I'm not saying it should, but it would be good from a PR 
> > perspective and as
> > an element in the reliability feeling vector ;-)
> Not sure about it... People like it when a product looks stable,
> and having a -blah or -pre and so on once a week doesn't make
> me feel I have some stable product...

But that's only because the kernel is in public development, it's not a
black box (which is a Good Thing (tm)). You shouldn't need to run a -pre
kernel release in 99% of all cases, so having them available shouldn't
detract from a feeling of stability (regardless of how often they come)

> > The number of -pre releases shouldn't be limited for its own sake, but
> > rather in the process of stabilising the kernel for release. 
> > So I mean after
> > a couple of -pre releases start focussing on debugging and 
> > then finish with
> > a few -rc's before the next cycle starts. That way the diffs 
> > between full
> > versions are smaller and upgrading gets easier.
> So, the question is to choose between :
>  - less releases with more changes
> or
>  - more relaseases with less changes
> 
> Is that correct ?

I guess so.

There's probably not a "right" way to choose between the two, but I'd prefer
the latter option.

Cheers

Simon