On 04.02.2011 19:37, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Why would .35, which is pretty explicitly for the "embedded" crowd,
Where does this come from? Quoting Andi Kleen:
"
The longterm tree will continue where Greg left 2.6.35-stable.
It will not be called "stable", but called "longterm" to make
the distinction clear.
The tree will follow the stable rules in
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.
My plan is to look at all patches that go into later stables (that is which
are sent to stable@ or marked Cc: stable <at> kernel.org in the git
description)
and merge them into 2.6.35 when applicable. I don't expect there will be
many
patches only for 2.6.35 and not for later stable trees. If there are and
they are submitted to stable@ I will consider them. I plan to be fairly
conservative.
"
stable_kernel_rules.txt doesn't state that the stable kernels are for
*embedded* crowd. If someone, some community, some distribution, some
company wants to maintain a specific version of the kernel for its
specific purposes like embedded, or mobile OS, etc. that shouldn't be
indicated as a bare longterm.
So talking about *embedded* which didn't make into neither your longterm
announcement nor Andi Kleen's follow-up, is a little bit paradoxal and
annoying.
Everything sent to [email protected] which fixes a bug, or
non-invasively adds support for new devices to the drivers should be
picked by the longterm series. There shouldn't be any policy about
rejecting that, accepting this.
If so, please let's make this clear.
Moving to .36 or hopefully .37 isn't an easy thing for rather-stable
kernels like .32 and .35 as the major releases have a tendency of
stabilizing after .4 .5.
Still so many regressions with 2.6.37 are around.
Note:
Apologize if my tone was a little bit serious as I've become a little
bit nervous after reading your e-mail.
Thanks,
Regards,
--
Pardus Linux
http://www.pardus.org.tr/eng
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
