Re: Linux 2.6.11.1

James Bourne
2005-03-05T07:11:22Z

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:51:13PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
...
> > > is this critical?
> >
> > Doubt it, unless the succeeding patches have a dependency on it. But the
> > other patches have not been tested without this one being present.
> >
> > These patches have been in mm for four weeks, so it's probably OK from a
> > stability POV to take them straight into linux-release. If they were
> > fresher then the way to handle them would be to merge them into Linus's
> > tree and backport in a couple of weeks time.
>
> Cool, fair enough. linux-release sounds fine.

ok, 4 bits not just 2...

Be frugal with the patches and don't take just *anything* that looks like a
good fix. What you want is a more stable version, meaning less changes as
time goes forward. I know it's the first couple days, but it looks like it
could easily go the other way...

Anyway, I hope this helps.

James

>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
>

--
James Bourne | Email: jbourne@hardrock.org
UNIX Systems Administration | WWW: http://www.hardrock.org
Custom UNIX Programming | Linux: The choice of a GNU generation
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"All you need's an occasional kick in the philosophy." Frank Herbert