From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: ACPI patch flow Date: 03 Feb 2004 08:01:29 -0500 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <1075813288.13729.45.camel@dhcppc4> References: <1075747579.2394.108.camel@dhcppc4> <20040203122832.GA1405@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20040203122832.GA1405-I/5MKhXcvmPrBKCeMvbIDA@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Pavel Machek Cc: ACPI Developers List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org > > I'd like to stop maintaining (and delete) 2.4.23 -- with the release of > > 2.4.24, I doubt anybody is using 2.4.23. > > > > I'd like to stop maintaining (and delete) 2.6.0 -- with the release of > > 2.6.1, I doubt anybody is using 2.6.0. Also, 2.6.1 has diverged > > somewhat from 2.6.0, so maintaining 2.6.0 has become problematic. > > > > let me know if you have any issues with this. > > I do not see any problems with that. > > For 2.6, if I were you, I'd drop 2.6.1, too. People should upgrade to > latest if they have problems.. Encourage upgrades to the latest -- I agree. The downside, however, is when the latest causes new problems -- so I'll keep 2.6.1 around for comparisons until after 2.6.2 comes out. (or until divergence makes it a pain to maintain;-) Also, when we reach the point that distros base a release on 2.6, it is useful to have a tree of the same vintage to make patching the distro tree viable. thanks, -Len ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn