Re: Some thoughts about stable kernel development

[Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>]

Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@stesmi.com> writes:

> x.y.z+1 pre/rc q does not contain
> something that x.y.z pre/rc r has is NOT easy. We both know that
> me and you will have no problem whatsoever with this scheme. So it's
> not about me and you. I just think it will confuse some people that's
> all.

That's correct. It seems I have misunderstood your previous email.

This scheme aims for less workload on the maintainers (compared to
different test + stable trees, as with many popular projects) -
the added bit of complexity at least seems to scale well.

Users already have to live with 2.5.1 being a little older than 2.4.22.

testing/* patches are IMHO not for people who may have problems (bigger
than just a moment of confusion) with such things - they will have much
more problems reporting a bug should they found one.

I know this isn't an ideal solution, that's the best I'm currently aware
of: we'd gain much shorter devel cycle at a really small cost.
I agree entirely with Alan and his opinion expressed in this thread.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa, B*FH