Re: Linux 2.6.11.2

[Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>]

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:11:57PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 01:06:31PM -0800, Matt Mackall wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:39:23AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > And to further test this whole -stable system, I've released 2.6.11.2.
> > > It contains one patch, which is already in the -bk tree, and came from
> > > the security team (hence the lack of the longer review cycle).
> > > 
> > > It's available now in the normal kernel.org places:
> > > 	kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/patch-2.6.11.2.gz
> > > which is a patch against the 2.6.11.1 release.
> > 
> > Argh! @*#$&!!&! 
> > 
> > > If consensus arrives
> > > that this patch should be against the 2.6.11 tree, it will be done that
> > > way in the future.
> > 
> > Consensus arrived back when 2.6.8.1 came out.
> 
> It did?  So, what was it agreed to be?  Any pointers to that agreement?

Deltas against 2.6.x tarballs. The discussion was some large fraction
of the 2.6.8.1 announce thread. I think someone else mentioned it in
the recent renumbering thread, so I didn't feel the need to
pre-emptively whinge this time around..

> > Fixing it in the future is too #*$%* late because you've now turned it
> > into a special case.
> 
> No, I can always respin the patch, and re-release it if it's a problem.

That'd make things easier, yes.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.