linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 21 Sep 2006 10:12:38 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.19 -mm merge plans

Ar Mer, 2006-09-20 am 22:23 -0700, ysgrifennodd Linus Torvalds:
> 
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 
> > Why would a shorter cycle be better?  What are we trying to achieve?
> 
> I don't think a shorter cycle is necessarily better, but I think we could 
> try having a more "directed" cycle, and perhaps merge certain specific 
> things rather than everything.

Works for me. We do need to keep pushing drivers each cycle (and we need
faster cycles just to keep up with the chipset people) but a situation
where people are told to keep those driver updates working with the old
core code would be fine (ie as 2.4 sometimes was) for some of the cycles
when they are not the goal.

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/