[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100212202534.GH11239@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:25:34 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>, lasse.collin@...aani.org,
mirrors@...nel.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"FTPAdmin Kernel.org" <ftpadmin@...nel.org>, users@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [kernel.org users] XZ Migration discussion
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:03:26AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 3* Create a new subdirectory for every 2.6.x kernel, and move all the
> > related files there. This would shrink the main index drastically, and
> > each subdirectory would have a reasonable size (except maybe 2.6.16 and
> > 2.6.27.) Oddly enough this has been done for the files under testing/
> > already, so I am curious why we don't do it for the release files (and
> > the testing/incr/ files, while we're at it.)
>
> Well, part of the reason why is that we're functionally "stuck" on 2.6;
> a prefix which really has lost all meaning.
>
> It might open up the question if we shouldn't just do a Solaris and drop
> the leading 2 (so the next kernel would be 6.33) or call the kernel
> after that 3.0 instead of 2.6.34, and then 3.1 instead of 2.6.35.
Damn, we forgot to have that fight at Kernel Summit last year.
I'm in favour of the 3.0 / 3.1 / 3.2 with stable@ being responsible for
3.0.1, 3.0.2, 3.1.1, etc.
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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