From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S269728AbUJGHIv@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S269728AbUJGHIv (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:08:51 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269730AbUJGHIu
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:08:50 -0400
Received: from siaag2ah.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.141]:50474 "EHLO
	siaag2ah.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S269728AbUJGHIs (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:08:48 -0400
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 03:05:45 -0400
From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <200410070308_MC3-1-8BB4-FF94@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

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.


--Chuck Ebbert