Re: Clean up older Kernels

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:32:46PM -0800, Bradley Chapman wrote:
> Mr. Garzik,
> 
> > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:40:47PM +0100, Thomas Babut wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > perhaps my question is unusual, but why do you not clean up the older Linux
> > > Kernels?
> > >
> > > The Kernel 2.0.39 is the last stable one, but there is also a 2.0.40-rc6. So
> > > why not releasing it as stable 2.0.40 (final)? And Alan Cox isn't active any
> > > more for some time and the ac-Patches are very old. They could be removed,
> > > or not?
> >
> > 2.0.x has a maintainer, David Winehall(sp?) IIRC. Poke him... :)
> >
> > I agree, might as well put out 2.0.40...
> 
> I've been wondering about this too, but I was afraid to ask first :-)
> 
> When 2.6 is officially released as a stable kernel and 2.4 is relegated to security/
> bugfix-only status, what will happen to 2.0 and 2.2? Obviously, they won't be
> totally ignored for support reasons (not everyone uses 2.4 - see counter.li.org),
> but what will Mr. Anvin do to the frontpage of kernel.org?

I don't see there being any radical change...  Alan still puts out 2.2
security fixes occasionally, and the older Linux kernels will _always_
be archived on ftp.kernel.org.  They're not going away... :)

	Jeff