>> I agree. I think that one previous -stable patch version should always
>> be listed there, even if we think that 2.6.N is stable. :)
>
>I don't at all. If we do that, people will assume that they need to
>wait till 2.6.N.1 before trying that kernel (as it wouldn't be "stable"
>otherwise.) So no one will test it, to really generate the bug reports
>that we need to get to that .1 release.
>
>Or should we just throw out a .1 release with the first simple patch
>that comes along just to make the kernel.org page update properly? I
>don't think so...
>
Or call the "2.6.X" as "2.6.X.0", so they got at least a clue that this is
becoming .1
Jan Engelhardt
--
-
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]
