| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1002061445210.3829@localhost.localdomain> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:49:49 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.33-rc7 On Sat, 6 Feb 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > But we've certainly fixed a few things, and it's been a week, so here's > -rc7. I wish I could say that it's the last -rc, but I strongly doubt > that, and we'll almost certainly have at least one more. Oh, and I forgot to ask one thing I had intended to ask in the release notes.. Do people really care about the old-fashioned tar.gz and patch.gz files? I've always uploaded the tar-files and patches compressed with gzip, because that's the "traditional" way, and then we have a script that also re-compresses things as 'bz2' because it compresses better and many people are bandwidth-limited and much prefer the better compression. Of course, if you really care about bandwidth, you're better off just fetching the git trees instead, but the question for non-git users is: Would it be ok to _only_ have the 'bz2' patches and tar-balls? Having two copies of every large file seems silly, if nobody really requires the traditional .gz format.. 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