Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751924AbWAEHa2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 02:30:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752101AbWAEHa2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 02:30:28 -0500 Received: from linux01.gwdg.de ([134.76.13.21]:52931 "EHLO linux01.gwdg.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751924AbWAEHa1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Jan 2006 02:30:27 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 08:30:14 +0100 (MET) From: Jan Engelhardt To: Greg KH cc: "Randy.Dunlap" , Alistair John Strachan , 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: <20060104234106.GB15724@kroah.com> 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> <20060104234106.GB15724@kroah.com> 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: 914 Lines: 24 >> 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. :) > >I don't at all. If we do that, people will assume that they need to >wait till 2.6.N.1 before trying that kernel (as it wouldn't be "stable" >otherwise.) So no one will test it, to really generate the bug reports >that we need to get to that .1 release. > >Or should we just throw out a .1 release with the first simple patch >that comes along just to make the kernel.org page update properly? I >don't think so... > Or call the "2.6.X" as "2.6.X.0", so they got at least a clue that this is becoming .1 Jan Engelhardt -- - 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/