Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932156AbVLCWgj (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:36:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751299AbVLCWgj (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:36:39 -0500 Received: from host-83-146-9-72.bulldogdsl.com ([83.146.9.72]:40789 "EHLO host-83-146-9-72.bulldogdsl.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751294AbVLCWgj (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Dec 2005 17:36:39 -0500 Message-ID: <43921DEC.9080406@unsolicited.net> Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:36:28 +0000 From: David Ranson User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthias Andree CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel References: <20051203135608.GJ31395@stusta.de> <1133620598.22170.14.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20051203152339.GK31395@stusta.de> <20051203162755.GA31405@merlin.emma.line.org> <4391CEC7.30905@unsolicited.net> <1133630012.6724.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4391D335.7040008@unsolicited.net> <20051203175355.GL31395@stusta.de> <4391E52D.6020702@unsolicited.net> <20051203222731.GC25722@merlin.emma.line.org> In-Reply-To: <20051203222731.GC25722@merlin.emma.line.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig85E771F37F5360D029D3A203" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1691 Lines: 52 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig85E771F37F5360D029D3A203 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matthias Andree wrote: >So was I. And now what? ipfwadm and ipchains should have been removed >from 2.6.0 if 2.6.0 was not to support these. That opportunity was >missed, the removal wasn't made up for in 2.6.1, so the stuff has to >stick until 2.8.0. > > I'm not aware of that policy... maybe I overlooked something? >This doesn't matter. A kernel that calls itself stable CAN NOT remove >features unless they had been critically broken from the beginning. And >this level of breakage is a moot point, so removal is not justified. > > >Who cares what you or I use? It's a commonly acknowledged policy that >"stable" releases do not remove features that are good enough for some. >Linux 2.6 is not "stable" in this regard. > > I guess our definitions of stable (and the degree of stability acceptable) differ. David --------------enig85E771F37F5360D029D3A203 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) iD8DBQFDkh30DYHcaCYtZo4RAvHBAKD0VzJnojZ+iup99MIh8zXwj2x4YgCfYCc1 rCXexbmooY4hFmNC8fq0tZU= =VJnb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig85E771F37F5360D029D3A203-- - 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/