From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269706AbUJGFfm (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:35:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269704AbUJGFfl (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:35:41 -0400 Received: from siaag2ag.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.140]:46156 "EHLO siaag2ag.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269706AbUJGFeQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:34:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:31:39 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model) To: linux-kernel Message-ID: <200410070134_MC3-1-8BA9-A215@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Why has linux 2.6.8 been abandoned at version 2.6.8.1? There exist fixes that could go into 2.6.8.2: process start time doesn't match system time FDDI frame doesn't allow 802.3 hwtype NFS server using XFS filesystem on SMP machine oopses I'm sure there are more... So why is 2.6.8.1 a "dead branch?" --Chuck Ebbert