On Tue, 18 Jun 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >But then why do you call it v1.11alpha if it's not "alpha quality" code?=20
> >With this naming scheme one could reasonably assume that v1.10 is the=20
> >stable version and v1.11alpha is the development/unstable version and=20
> >so should not be included in a stable release of a distribution.
>
> But cannot Linux-2.4 really called a development kernel?
No. 2.4 has very controlled releases, each version goes through many
prerelease and release candidate cycles before a new version comes out.
The 2.5 kernel is a playpen, I drop in a new drive in a hot swap cage to
even test it.
> I believe that any cdrecord release is more "stable" than current Linux
> kernels that brought even massive VM changes _after_ the official
> release has been brought out.
Change control doesn't mean lack of changes. Note that many places I have
worked "alpha" means ready for in-house test, "beta" means ready for
customer test, and official releases are assumed tested. And having
servers in four timezones, I can assure that new 2.4 releases have gotten
more stable, particularly SMP.
This is a matter of perception, if you call it ALPHA folks take you at
your word. The world is not fair, but it's the only one we have, so a
1.11.0-STABLE release would probably feel better to vendors.
I still think you should rename it...
-- rob bogus
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
