linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.21

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]

Message-ID: <46322F63.9000604@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date:	Fri, 27 Apr 2007 21:14:11 +0400
From:	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
CC:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21

Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
[]
> We've got stable series.
> With KNOWN_PROBLEMS information, sysadmins can decide if they can
> safely upgrade to .0 or if they have to wait for .123. Pressing
> the responsible people to fix the problems in .123 (would) help
> it greatly.

For how long you plan to maintain 2.6.x.y -stable series for each
2.6.x release?  The thing is that tehere will probably be NO
.123 "revision" (with maybe the exception of 2.6.16, thanks to
Adrian again).  The end result is that there will be just no stable
kernels *at all*. because when the next 2.6.x will start looking
more or less useful due to 2.6.x.y series, there will be new 2.6.x+1,
and work with 2.6.x stops...

It's not the case currently, but this way ("let's fix the bugs
in 2.6.x.y -stable series, don't bother releasing 2.6.x in a good
shape"), we can finally come to the above situation...

/mjt
-
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/