From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
To: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.23.3
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:03:08 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071117010308.GA13659@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <473E247F.2090101@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 02:15:11AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > We (the -stable team) are announcing the release of the 2.6.23.3 kernel.
> > It contains a number of bugfixes for a number of architecture specific
> > issues.
> [.4, .5, .6 and .7 follows after .2 and .3]
>
> I've seen the bunch of patches posted for review - split to several
> series. But - out of curiocity - what's the reason to roll each
> series into each own stable release? Can't all .2...7 be combined
> into a single release (not counting .8 wich contains urgent security
> fixes)? (I mean, not with already rolled out stuff, but the original
> reasoning for split-releasing them (as opposed to split-reviewing))
Is there something "sacred" about version numbers that we need to be
stingy with them as they are a finite resource? :)
This way, we have specific, easy to identify points in the development
process to help users in case they report problems to let the developers
easily narrow down the potential problem.
That, and I couldn't think of some other way to name the -rc patches, so
I used the minor version number. Because of that, I was forced to name
the final releases with the same minor number to keep everyone sane over
time.
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-17 1:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-16 18:37 Linux 2.6.23.8 Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:38 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:39 ` Linux 2.6.23.2 Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:39 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 19:35 ` Mark Lord
2007-11-16 19:39 ` Matti Aarnio
2007-11-16 19:57 ` Matt Mackall
2007-11-16 23:35 ` David Woodhouse
2007-11-18 1:38 ` Krzysztof Halasa
2007-11-16 20:10 ` Greg KH
2007-11-16 18:44 ` Linux 2.6.23.3 Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:44 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 23:15 ` Michael Tokarev
2007-11-17 1:03 ` Greg KH [this message]
2007-11-16 18:46 ` Linux 2.6.23.4 Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:46 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:47 ` Linux 2.6.23.5 Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:47 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:48 ` Linux 2.6.23.6 Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:49 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:50 ` Linux 2.6.23.7 Greg Kroah-Hartman
2007-11-16 18:50 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071117010308.GA13659@suse.de \
--to=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjt@tls.msk.ru \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox