| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 13:39:16 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com> To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> CC: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21 Linus Torvalds wrote: > In other words, there's a _reason_ we have staggered development. We have > the "crazy development trees" (aka -mm and various other trees), we have > the "development tree" (aka Linus' tree), and we have the -stable tree. If > the stable tree has a dozen known issues that they'll have to sort out > over the next two months, that's *fine*. That's kind of the point of the > stable tree. > If the result is fixing things which then don't get fixed in mainline, as Adrian notes, then there is something wrong with the process, and why will people bother to work on stable if they have doubts that there will be long term benefit. With all the effort the regressions list takes and the stable group puts into fixes, someone in charge should insist that regressions fixed in stable be fixed in mainline. Since there's only one "someone in charge" of policy, I think that's a reasonable commitment to the people doing the work. -- Bill Davidsen <davidsen@....com> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - 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