On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:34:58PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 08:57:01PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:52:46 -0800 (PST) Chuck Wolber wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 08:30:25PM -0800, Chuck Wolber wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't we supposed to stop doing
> > > > > this for the 2.6.14 release now that 2.6.15 is out?
> > > >
> > > > I don't see a problems with doing additional stable releases for any
> > > > kernel, I just wouldn't commit to supporting any specific number of
> > > > releases. Basically if people send enough patches to warrant a
> > > > review/release there is obviously some interest. What is the harm?
> > >
> > > The harm is that stable release patches will eventually start being
> > > maintained and we'll have to add another stable release "dot" to the end
> > > of the growing width of the release version moniker. This stable branch
> > > was meant only for "one-off" fixes to a stable release, not for adding
> > > fixes upon fixes upon fixes that eventually turn into features that have
> > > to be maintained. A new stable release means we change our focus to it and
> > > ignore the old stable release.
> >
> > It's a 6-month sliding window for stable releases IIRC.
> > Maybe <[email protected]> can add something like that to
> > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt>.
>
> No, it's not a 6 month window, I released this because people sent us
> patches that they said should go into the 2.6.14-stable tree. And as
> people complained so much on lkml that we were dropping the old kernels
> too fast, I never thought that people would complain that we are
> maintaining older stuff that people seem interested in...
>
> And, odds are, it will probably be the last 2.6.14 stable kernel we (the
> stable team) release, unless something unusual happens...
>
> And, as always, anyone is free to take on maintaining any of the
> different kernel versions for as long as they wish.
>
> Does that help?
>
> Man, people complain when you don't maintain older kernels, and they
> complain when you do...
Greg, there will always be stupid people who don't understand the work
of others. These are the same type of people who won't understand at all
why there's a -stable branch. When I started 2.4-hf, I've been told
"you're dumb, 2.4 is dead". I'm very glad that you take care of people
who cannot easily upgrade to latest version, and I'm sure that a lot of
users are too.
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
Thanks for keeping up the good work,
Willy
-
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]
