Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:29:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:29:20 -0400 Received: from zero.aec.at ([193.170.194.10]:16648 "EHLO zero.aec.at") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:29:20 -0400 To: jbradford@dial.pipex.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 References: <200209290716.g8T7GNwf000562@darkstar.example.net> From: Andi Kleen Date: 29 Sep 2002 17:34:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200209290716.g8T7GNwf000562@darkstar.example.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 870 Lines: 15 jbradford@dial.pipex.com writes: > > The block IO cleanups are important, and that was the major thing _I_ > > personally wanted from the 2.5.x tree when it was opened. I agree with you > > there. But I don't think they are major-number-material. > > I'd definitely have voted for stable IPV6 being a 3.0.x requirement, but I guess it's a bit late now :-/ Actually current IPv6 is stable and has been for a long time, it's just not completely standards compliant (but still quite usable for a lot of people) If you mean stable implies the latest whizbang features you have a different meaning of stable than me. -Andi - 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/