Re: Please tag tested releases of the 2.4.x kernel

[Mike Fedyk]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 05:04:51PM -0500, Justin Wells wrote:
> 
> It would be great if on kernel.org there were a note indicating which 
> releases of the linux kernel had been favourably received. 
>
> If you could organize a bit you could even mark a release as "TESTED",
> or even "APPROVED". All it would mean is that after it had been out for
> a week or two nobody found any really serious problems.
>

Are you volunteering to keep up on which kernels had what erratas?

> "Really serious" would be something like it corrupts the filesystem, or
> crashes a lot, or fails to build, or introduces a remote root exploit.
> Releases like 2.4.14 (fails to build loopback) and 2.4.15 (corrupts) 
> would not be tagged as "APPROVED".
> 
> Also "APPROVED" or "TESTED" doesn't mean there are no issues or problems,
> just that they're the usual kind of issues and problems, rather than 
> really serious issues.
> 
> I expect there to be quite a bit of human judgement involved in applying
> the label. I'm not looking for a rigorous criteria--just the general 
> feeling of the community a week or two after the release was posted.
> 

The problem is that this is much like documentation.  It (should|needs to)
be done, but usually it'll be started, and then abandoned.

Something like LWN (Linux Weekly News) might be a good place for this.
Since you probably wouldn't want to know daily if you're going to be a few
versions behind.

mf