On Tue, 2017-01-10 at 16:55 +, Mike Cloaked via arch-general wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general <
> arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
>
> Looks like there are some patches to try and are being tested for
> kernel
> 4.9 - see
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote:
> On 01/10/2017 08:53 AM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
>> My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes
>> with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not
>> upholding a important fixes only
On 01/10/2017 08:53 AM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
> My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes
> with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not
> upholding a important fixes only policy.
That would depend on whether you understand "stable" to be "LTS"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general <
arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
> FYI, 4.8 has been EOL'd, leaving 4.4-lts, 4.1-lts as options for
> arch "default" kernel until 4.10 is released if we assume that
> there's a critical fix in the stable patch queue.
>
> My
FYI, 4.8 has been EOL'd, leaving 4.4-lts, 4.1-lts as options for
arch "default" kernel until 4.10 is released if we assume that
there's a critical fix in the stable patch queue.
My criticism of the stable patch queue is that they mix fixes
with actual feature patches, making it more risky and not
5 matches
Mail list logo
