Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 09:41:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 09:41:37 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-5-cust12.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.121.12]:30446 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 09:41:34 -0400 Subject: Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............ From: Alan Cox To: c0330 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) Date: 13 Jul 2002 15:53:26 +0100 Message-Id: <1026572006.9956.106.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1180 Lines: 23 On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 22:35, 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. Why should you care ? 2.0 can continue to slowly and cautiously get critical bug fixes between now and the end of time providing someone cares enough to do the work. There are plenty of 2.0 boxes employed as routers, print servers, intranet dialins etc which will probably only become 2.4 boxes when the hardware is taken out of service. I can't speak for David Weinehall's experience, and I know he does a lot more chasing down of bug reports than I bother to with 2.2 but in my experience maintaining a very stable kernel tree like 2.2 is nowdays is not a massive workload. It primarily consists of sending emails out which say "no" - 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/