[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612101438080.12500@woody.osdl.org>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:39:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Chris Wedgwood <cw@...f.org>
cc: Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio@...giomb.no-ip.org>,
Daniel Ritz <daniel.ritz@....ch>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>,
Brice Goglin <brice@...i.com>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>,
Bauke Jan Douma <bjdouma@...all.nl>,
Tomasz Koprowski <tomek@...rowski.org>, gregkh@...e.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: RFC: PCI quirks update for 2.6.16
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Chris Wedgwood wrote:
>
> > If I remember right, it breaks Chris Wedgwood's box
>
> I'm not bothered about 2.6.16.x anymore, feel free to do whatever is
> needed there.
That's really not the point.
What's the whole _reason_ for 2.6.x.y releases?
They should be safe, and OBVIOUS.
If there is a box that breaks with a 2.6.x.y release, then that .y release
was clearly a mistake, and fundamentally broke the whole point of the
stable tree. If you can't depend on the stable tree being a real
improvement - regardless of what hw you are on - then the stable tree has
lost all meaning, and you'd be better off just getting 2.6.x+1 instead.
Linus
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists