From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750824AbWA2E4n (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:56:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750825AbWA2E4n (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:56:43 -0500 Received: from xenotime.net ([66.160.160.81]:3200 "HELO xenotime.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750824AbWA2E4n (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:56:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:57:01 -0800 From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: Chuck Wolber Cc: jmforbes@linuxtx.org, gregkh@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, tytso@mit.edu, davej@redhat.com, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] 2.6.14.7 -stable review Message-Id: <20060128205701.5b84922e.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: References: <20060128021749.GA10362@kroah.com> <20060129044307.GA23553@linuxtx.org> Organization: YPO4 X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.4 (GTK+ 2.8.3; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 can add something like that to Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt>. --- ~Randy