Hi. On Friday 05 May 2006 12:33, Chris Wright wrote: > * Nigel Cunningham ([email protected]) wrote: > > Is this supposed to be some sort of subtle pressure on Linus to open 2.7? > > :> > > He does every couple months and leaves it open for a few weeks. > Then, just to keep us guessing, he releases it with a 2.6 name ;-) > > Actually, I think the system is working quite well. We've got a quick > route for getting bug fixes and security fixes to users, and a shorter > devel cycle helping distro folks get more regular drops from upstream. > This particular patch applies all the way back to the beginning of git > time (over a year ago), and I'm sure earlier. So it's hard to conclude > it's a byproduct of the release cycles. :) Tongue was firmly in cheek. I guess I should have said more initially. It wasn't so much the patch, as the speed with which they're coming. It makes me (at least) feel like the stable series is unstable. Couldn't you store them up for a day or two at a time (unless of course they really are that important that they require a quicker cycle). Regards, Nigel
Attachment:
pgpZovhFZsSwx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Linux 2.6.16.14
- From: Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.16.14
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.16.14
- From: "Ioan Ionita" <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.16.14
- References:
- Linux 2.6.16.14
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.16.14
- From: Nigel Cunningham <[email protected]>
- Re: Linux 2.6.16.14
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Linux 2.6.16.14
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] drivers/block/loop.c: don't return garbage if LOOP_SET_STATUS not called
- Next by Date: Re: Linux 2.6.16.14
- Previous by thread: Re: Linux 2.6.16.14
- Next by thread: Re: Linux 2.6.16.14
- Index(es):