From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268005AbUHYOzL (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:55:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267985AbUHYOyk (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:54:40 -0400 Received: from jade.spiritone.com ([216.99.193.136]:19435 "EHLO jade.spiritone.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266262AbUHYOwu (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:52:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 07:52:29 -0700 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Linus Torvalds , Daniel Andersen cc: "Sartorelli, Kevin" , fraga@abusar.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1 Message-ID: <147680000.1093445547@[10.10.2.4]> In-Reply-To: References: <4B2093FFC31B7A45862B62A376EA7176033C058D@mickey.topnz.ac.nz><412BE5CC.8020303@linux-user.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.2.1 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Linus, is there a chance that >> there will be a x.y.z.W release of an old kernel after the next x.y.Z.w >> has been released and no longer is -rc? For example releasing a 2.6.8.2 >> after 2.6.9 has been released and no longer is a 2.6.9-rcX. > > I don't see the point of such a release, so I'd say "no". Once we have a > stable kernel, we make updates to _that_ one, not older ones. > > HOWEVER - there may well be exceptions to this brought on by distribution > usage etc. For example, if some distribution ends up basing it's work on > (say) 2.6.8.1, and we later find a bug, we might release a 2.6.8.2 even > though we might have done a 2.6.9 or even 2.6.10 later - just as a way to > support the existing users who take a long time to update. > > I consider that a pretty remote possibility, though. It's a lot more > likely that the distribution-maker itself just does it's own patch on top > of whatever release he started off with. My assumption would be that once 2.6.9 is released, it's not uber-stable immediately ... so it'd be nice to keep at least one minor rev back going on the bugfix stream (eg 2.6.8.X) .... for people who want an uber-stable kernel. Doing more than 1 back would indeed seem counter-productive. That said it's unlikely there would still be urgent fixes for 2.6.8 a few weeks after it was released, but it seems like the right thing to do, at least in principle (maybe for a security fix, or something). M.