| 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: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:54:58 +0200 From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> To: Alex Howells <alex@...emark.co.uk> CC: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@....ic.unicamp.br>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...nel.org>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change Alex Howells wrote: > What I'd love to see any changes integrate would be a simple way to spot > -stable releases in the version number (ie: 2.6.16, 2.6.27, those > maintained for a "long" time and hopefully by 2.6.16.50+ quite 'bug > free') versus the rest of releases sent out on a more regular basis. Side note: Long-term maintained kernels like Adrian's 2.6.16.y or distro kernels of this sort -> are not 'quite bug free' <-. They are only -> quite regression free <-. If you want bug fixes, you generally want new kernels. Only a fraction of the bug fixes in new kernels are backported to the long-term maintained stable kernels. OTOH, also only a fraction of the regressions in new kernels is backported to them. -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--- =-=- =-=-= http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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