On 6 Dec 2005, Rob Landley moaned:
> On Saturday 03 December 2005 17:35, Chris Wright wrote:
>> relevant. About the only thing I think is helpful in this case is perhaps
>> one extra -stable cycle on the last branch when newest branch is released
>> (basically flush the queue). That much I'm willing to do in -stable.
>
> Yay rah cool!
Seconded (thirded?), this is a very good idea (and as it's just a queue
flush is probably quite easy to do).
That way those of us who are paranoid can upgrade our experimental boxes
immediately, apply the latest -stable to the non-experimental boxes, and
then cautiously upgrade those boxes when the experimental ones seem to
be working OK. Currently whenever there's a non-stable kernel rev I'm
filled with trepidation: do I upgrade the stable boxes and risk
instability, or leave them as they are and risk insecurity?
--
`Y'know, London's nice at this time of year. If you like your cities
freezing cold and full of surly gits.' --- David Damerell
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
