Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:42:57 -0800 (PST) | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.14.5 to 2.6.15 patch |
| |
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 03:31:01PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Alistair John Strachan wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 04 January 2006 23:13, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:58:24PM +0000, Alistair John Strachan wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday 04 January 2006 22:31, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue I hit was we have a 'latest stable kernel release > > > > > > > > 2.6.14.5' and under it a 'the latest stable kernel' (or words to > > > > > > > > that effect) on kernel.org. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Then when 2.6.15 came out, that was it! No patch for the 'latest > > > > > > > > stable kernel release 2.6.14.5'. It was GONE! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I brought this up a couple of weeks ago, but I was told > > > > > > > that I was wrong (in some such words). > > > > > > > I agree that it needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > > > > > How would you suggest that it be fixed? > > > > > > > > > > It's difficult, but perhaps providing a link to the latest "stable team" > > > > > release in addition to Linus's release would solve the problem. > > > > > > > > But what happens when we release a 2.6.14.y release and a 2.6.15.y > > > > release at the same time (as people have requested this in previous > > > > threads...)? What would show up where? > > > > > > You're right, it's complicated. In that case I'd still opt for showing > > > 2.6.15.y, as the vast majority of people manually installing vanilla kernels > > > will either be on the latest-ish kernel, or have a clue about what they're > > > doing (who doesn't know the ftp URL off by heart now). > > > > I agree. I think that one previous -stable patch version should always > > be listed there, even if we think that 2.6.N is stable. :) > > I don't at all. If we do that, people will assume that they need to > wait till 2.6.N.1 before trying that kernel (as it wouldn't be "stable" > otherwise.) So no one will test it, to really generate the bug reports > that we need to get to that .1 release. > > Or should we just throw out a .1 release with the first simple patch > that comes along just to make the kernel.org page update properly? I > don't think so...
and the circle continues.
You are reading too much PR. 8:)
-- ~Randy - 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/
| |