From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266864AbUJGO6i (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:58:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266896AbUJGO6i (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:58:38 -0400 Received: from clock-tower.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:60590 "EHLO localhost.localdomain") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266864AbUJGO63 (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 10:58:29 -0400 Subject: Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model) From: Alan Cox To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Cc: Jeff Garzik , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <200410070308_MC3-1-8BB4-FF94@compuserve.com> References: <200410070308_MC3-1-8BB4-FF94@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1097157345.31528.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6 (1.4.6-2) Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:55:47 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Iau, 2004-10-07 at 08:05, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Thanks to BitKeeper no properly-tagged branch is ever dead. > > Anyone could make a 2.6.8.2 if they so chose. > But it would be pointless without offical blessing from Linus. Pray how do you thing the 2.0.x-ac kernel series started. Yes it would be ".2ce" but people will judge code by whether it works and over time. Linus doesn't have infinite time to bless each small change Alan