Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 7 Jan 2005 09:33:28 +0100 | From | Paolo Ciarrocchi <> | Subject | Re: starting with 2.7 |
| |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:31:46 -0500, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 03:03:26PM +0100, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote: > > > >>What's wrong in keeping the release management as is now plus > >>introducing a 2.6.X.Y series of kernels ? > >> > >>In short: > >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=109882220123966&w=2 > > > > > > Currently (2.6.10), there would have been 11 such branches. > > > > If a security vulnerability was found today, this meant backporting and > > applying the patch to 11 different kernel versions, the oldest one being > > more than one year old. > > > > With more 2.6 versions, there would be even more branches, and the > > oldest ones becoming more and more different from the current codebase. > > > > You could at some point start dropping the oldest branches, but this > > would mean a migration to a more recent branch for all users of this > > branch. > > > > OTOH, if you migrated relatively late at 2.4.17 to the 2.4 branch, this > > branch is still actively maintained today, more than 3 years later. > > I don't think that's what he meant (I hope not) and I know it's not what > I had in mind. What I was suggesting is that until 2.6.11 comes out, all > patches which are fixes (existing feature doesn't work, oops, security > issues, or other "unusable with the problem triggered" cases) would go > into 2.6.10.N, where N would be a small number unless we had another 100 > day release cycle.
Yes, that is what I meant.
-- Paolo Personal home page: www.ciarrocchi.tk - 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/
| |