linux-kernel - Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

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 Jun 2007 16:32:50 -0700 (PDT)
From:	david@...g.hm
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
cc:	Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>,
	Zoltán HUBERT <zoltan.hubert@...ero.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

> On Jun 22 2007 00:29, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>> On 21/06/07, Zoltán HUBERT <zoltan.hubert@...ero.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> All people who might read this know that traditionally
>>> stable releases are even numbered and development branches
>>> are odd numbered. This changed during late develoment of
>>> 2.6, according to my analysis because of the "invention" of
>>> GIT which was itself necessary because of BitKeeper (insert
>>> ooooooooold flame-wars here) and which allowed very dynamic
>>> develoment.
>> [...]
>> I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
>> regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
>> solve this. In general the 2.6.x.y -stable kernels seem to be doing
>> the job pretty good.
>
> For my part, I think the 2.6.<odd> did not go as well as the 2.6.<even>,
> beginning with x=16.

you misunderstood the even/odd it was never 2.x.y with y odd/even being 
stable / development, it was the x being even/odd to indicate stable / 
development.

all 2.6.x are stable, all 2.5.x were development.

David Lang