Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S276623AbRJDQFB>; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:05:01 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S276666AbRJDQEv>; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:04:51 -0400
Received: from pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.19.3]:28677 "EHLO
	pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S276623AbRJDQEe>; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:04:34 -0400
Message-Id: <200110041604.f94G4Y6w007354@pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl>
To: hps@intermeta.de
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Past CREDITS files 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Oct 2001 07:59:22 GMT."
             <9ph4sq$gd0$1@forge.intermeta.de> 
X-mailer: MH [Version 6.8.4]
X-charset: ISO_8859-1
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:04:34 -0400
From: Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

"Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <mailgate@hometree.net> said:
> Robert Love <rml@tech9.net> writes:
> 
> >Anyhow, the two-fold stable/devel system has been in effect since at
> >least 1.0, when we had 1.1->1.2 (then 1.3->2.0, 2.1->2.2, etc.) 
> >Hopefully we can continue this tradition and have 2.5 start sometime!
> 
> Personally, I'd consider 2.4 -> 2.9 -> 3.0 

What are the earthshattering changes you foresee that would suggest going
for 3.0?
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                Usuario #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513
-
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/