Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]> writes: > The big picture section of 2.Process.rst currently hardcodes major > version number to 5 since fb0e0ffe7fc8e0 ("Documentation: bring process > docs up to date"). As it can get outdated when it is actually > incremented (the recent is 6 and will be 7 in the near future), replace > it with the placeholder. > > Note that the version number examples are kept to illustrate the > numbering scheme. > > Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya <[email protected]> > --- > Documentation/process/2.Process.rst | 40 ++++++++++++----------------- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst > b/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst > index ef3b116492df08..668d5559ded039 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/2.Process.rst > @@ -13,24 +13,18 @@ how the process works is required in order to be an > effective part of it. > The big picture > --------------- > > -The kernel developers use a loosely time-based release process, with a new > -major kernel release happening every two or three months. The recent > -release history looks like this: > +Linux kernel uses a loosely time-based, rolling release development model. > +A new major kernel release (a.x) [1]_ happens every two or three monts, which > +comes with new features, internal API changes, and more. A typical release > +can contain about 13,000 changesets with changes to several hundred thousand > +lines of code. Recent releases, along with their dates, can be found at > +`Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel_version_history>`_.
I have to admit that I'm not at all convinced that this change brings clarity to the document; using real numbers grounds the text in a way that "a.x" does not. If we really think it's embarrassing to still say "5.whatever" here, perhaps we should just change it to "9.whatever" and be good for a long time? Thanks, jon
