Re: 2.6.14.5 to 2.6.15 patch

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> 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]
  Powered by Linux