Messages in this thread | | | From | Massimiliano Hofer <> | Subject | Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel | Date | Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:29:18 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday 7 December 2005 5:05 pm, Horst von Brand wrote:
> You can certainly keep 2.6.x.y for a while when 2.6.(x+1) shows up, and > even wait for 2.6.(x+1).1. Note that the stable series maintainers are > sypmathetic to the idea of doing a last 2.6.x.(y+1), flushing the queued > patches when 2.6.(x+1) shows up. Is this enough for you?
If a 2.6.x.1 is released and a vulnerability is discovered with the wrong timing, this leaves us with a kernel that has had little or no testing.
We already had a 2.6.x that didn't even boot on half my servers. When 2.6.x.1 is the first bootable version and a security patch arrives, this leaves me with an uncomfortable choice between an old, stable and vulnerable version and a new, shiny and untested one.
Having 2.6.x-1.y and 2.6.x.y would avoid this situation.
-- Bye, Massimiliano Hofer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |