Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 09:36:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 09:36:02 -0400 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.224.33.161]:50593 "EHLO holomorphy") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 09:36:00 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 06:37:43 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III To: c0330 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............ Message-ID: <20020713133743.GG21551@holomorphy.com> Mail-Followup-To: William Lee Irwin III , c0330 , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Description: brief message Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 828 Lines: 20 On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 09:35:03PM +0000, c0330 wrote: > Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after > the release of 2.6? I think we would put our focus on much more > newer kernel. And I found this may confuse the newbies, because they > don't know much about versioning in Kernel. > In nowsdays, there are less less compputers using 2.0. We should > push them to upgrade, so I think stop developing 2.0 is better, in > my opinion I don't see why. If 2.0 is what works best for someone there's no reason to push them to use something else. Cheers, Bill - 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/