From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267291AbUJGFxo (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:53:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269710AbUJGFxo (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:53:44 -0400 Received: from havoc.gtf.org ([69.28.190.101]:21679 "EHLO havoc.gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267291AbUJGFxi (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:53:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 01:49:09 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: alan Cc: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, linux-kernel Subject: Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model) Message-ID: <20041007054909.GA23561@havoc.gtf.org> References: <200410070134_MC3-1-8BA9-A215@compuserve.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:46:46PM -0700, alan wrote: > On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > > > Why has linux 2.6.8 been abandoned at version 2.6.8.1? > > > > There exist fixes that could go into 2.6.8.2: > > > > process start time doesn't match system time > > FDDI frame doesn't allow 802.3 hwtype > > NFS server using XFS filesystem on SMP machine oopses > > > > I'm sure there are more... > > > > So why is 2.6.8.1 a "dead branch?" > > It was an emergency "paperbag" release number. > > All paperbag releases are made from dead branches. Thanks to BitKeeper no properly-tagged branch is ever dead. Anyone could make a 2.6.8.2 if they so chose. Jeff