Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750705AbWADXbF (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2006 18:31:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750706AbWADXbF (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2006 18:31:05 -0500 Received: from xenotime.net ([66.160.160.81]:60605 "HELO xenotime.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750705AbWADXbB (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2006 18:31:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 15:31:01 -0800 (PST) From: "Randy.Dunlap" X-X-Sender: rddunlap@shark.he.net To: Alistair John Strachan cc: Greg KH , "Randy.Dunlap" , Nick Warne , Jesper Juhl , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, webmaster@kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.14.5 to 2.6.15 patch In-Reply-To: <200601042328.15528.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: References: <200601041710.37648.nick@linicks.net> <200601042258.24888.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> <20060104231330.GD14788@kroah.com> <200601042328.15528.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> 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: 1848 Lines: 42 On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Alistair John Strachan wrote: > On Wednesday 04 January 2006 23:13, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 10:58:24PM +0000, Alistair John Strachan wrote: > > > On Wednesday 04 January 2006 22:31, Greg KH wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > The issue I hit was we have a 'latest stable kernel release > > > > > > 2.6.14.5' and under it a 'the latest stable kernel' (or words to > > > > > > that effect) on kernel.org. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then when 2.6.15 came out, that was it! No patch for the 'latest > > > > > > stable kernel release 2.6.14.5'. It was GONE! > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I brought this up a couple of weeks ago, but I was told > > > > > that I was wrong (in some such words). > > > > > I agree that it needs to be fixed. > > > > > > > > How would you suggest that it be fixed? > > > > > > It's difficult, but perhaps providing a link to the latest "stable team" > > > release in addition to Linus's release would solve the problem. > > > > But what happens when we release a 2.6.14.y release and a 2.6.15.y > > release at the same time (as people have requested this in previous > > threads...)? What would show up where? > > You're right, it's complicated. In that case I'd still opt for showing > 2.6.15.y, as the vast majority of people manually installing vanilla kernels > will either be on the latest-ish kernel, or have a clue about what they're > doing (who doesn't know the ftp URL off by heart now). I agree. I think that one previous -stable patch version should always be listed there, even if we think that 2.6.N is stable. :) -- ~Randy - 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/