Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262687AbVCDCfe (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:35:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262833AbVCDCbp (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:31:45 -0500 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:14208 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262687AbVCDC2r (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2005 21:28:47 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 18:28:20 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Alan Cox Cc: greg@kroah.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, torvalds@osdl.org, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering Message-Id: <20050303182820.46bd07a5.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1109894511.21781.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <42268749.4010504@pobox.com> <20050302200214.3e4f0015.davem@davemloft.net> <42268F93.6060504@pobox.com> <4226969E.5020101@pobox.com> <20050302205826.523b9144.davem@davemloft.net> <4226C235.1070609@pobox.com> <20050303080459.GA29235@kroah.com> <4226CA7E.4090905@pobox.com> <422751C1.7030607@pobox.com> <20050303181122.GB12103@kroah.com> <20050303151752.00527ae7.akpm@osdl.org> <1109894511.21781.73.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1147 Lines: 27 Alan Cox wrote: > > On Iau, 2005-03-03 at 23:17, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Ideally, the 2.6.x.y maintainer wouldn't need any particular kernel > > development skills - it's just patchmonkeying the things which maintainers > > send him. > > I would disagree, and I suspect anyone else who has maintained a distro > stable kernel would likewise. It needs one or more people who know who > to ask about stuff, are careful, have a good grounding in bug spotting, > races, common mistakes and know roughly how all the kernel works. > Maintainers aren't very good at it in general and they don't see > overlaps between areas very well. > That is all inappropriate activity for a 2.6.x.y tree as it is being proposed. Am I right? All we're proposing here is a tree which has small fixups for reasonably serious problems. Almost without exception it would consist of backports. - 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/