Beta packages within stable releases

[Ken Chilton]

On 10/11/2009 06:09 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Ken Chilton wrote:
>>> There used to be a practice in all things Linux where even-numbered 
>>> release numbers implied stable releases, where
>>> odd-numbered releases were development tracks.  The Linux kernel 
>>> follows such a scheme, with 2.4.x and 2.6.x being the
>>> (more) stable.
>
> *Did follow such a scheme, but no longer. There is no 2.7.x for kinky 
> development thingies for 2.8.x like there was 2.5.x for kinky 2.6.x 
> development thingies, afaik.

Correct.  The kernel developers changed to a four number scheme (e.g. 
2.6.30.5, 2.6.31.5) for stable releases, with the last number a bugfix 
iteration, over the course from late 2005 (when the new unstable 2.7.x 
would have started, if not for the change) up to today.  The current 
development/unstable for 2.6.32 is in the form 2.6.32-[rcx]-next (e.g. 
2.6.32-rc3-next, which is the current unstable tree).

KC