Larry Howard Mittman writes:
>
> Taken from the ELKS web site - road map page
>
> > After 0.1 more elaborate features will be added, in particular
> networking. At this stage it may be desirable to maintain a 0.1 stable
> > series, and do all new development in the 0.2 series. It may reduce
> confusion to maintain the convention of numbering the
> > development series kernel with an odd minor number, and stable series
> with an even minor number.
>
> This appears contradictory - ie: how can 0.1 be a stable kernel and 0.2
> be development when you state that the development kernels will have an
> ODD minor number and stable will have an EVEN minor number?
>
I put this up as a point for discusion, rather than a statement of intent.
What does everyone think? Is it confusing to break with the Linux kernel
convention?
The only reason I suggested using 0.1 as the stable tree is because we are
currently heading towards making 0.1.0 a stable version.
Al
