On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> WTF? We do this quite regularly... the rc's have been pushed in cooker >> and I'm pretty sure cauldron in the past. The fact that this is 3.x.x >> rather 2.6.38 is pretty much a whim of numbering and nothing >> specifically relating to anything "significant" or similar. >> >> And who cares if -latest is updated. Your old kernel is not removed and >> TMB gave you forewarning about it. >> >> This is really one of the lamest complaints ever!!! > > Notwithstanding that this is cauldron, not stable, it is _not_ like an update > from > 2.6.38.8-desktop-2 > to > 2.6.38.8-desktop-5 > > This is a _major_ kernel update, even if 3.0.0-rc7 is actually 2.6.40-rc7. > > As a matter of fact, while 2.6.38.8 was a _very_ stable kernel, this one is > _not_, > > The latest _stable_ kernel is 2.6.39.3, not this bloody 2.6.40-rc7, aka > 3.0.0-rc7. > > And I don't remember of any "forewarning". > > Also, even in Cauldron, shouldn't it have stayed for more time in testing? > > Finally, when you upgrade a regular package (say, LibreOffice, which was > recently updated) to a new version, it is extremely unlikely that you would > update it to a Beta/RC one, even in Cauldron. Then why your standards are > _lower_ when comes to the kernel -- the most important component of all?!?!?
what is with LO ?
