From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758606AbYDST6o (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:58:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755061AbYDST6g (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:58:36 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:3202 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754066AbYDST6g (ORCPT ); Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:58:36 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 21:44:38 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.36.3 Message-ID: <20080419194438.GA16133@1wt.eu> References: <20080419145327.GA23566@hera.kernel.org> <480A4693.3050208@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <480A4693.3050208@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Peter, On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 03:22:59PM -0400, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Any reason to have 2.4.x.y instead of just 2.4.x+y? I find it somewhat > hard to believe there is substantial new development on 2.4, so it > really should be all "stable". Since 2.4.33 there have been a few minor add-ons and backports (support for gcc4, e1000 update, and mmap_min_addr come to mind). It's important for me to indicate when users can blindly upgrade (eg: security fix or real bug) and when they should at least perform a quick revalidation. This has worked well for quite some time now. Since the changes were really minor here, I did not want to open 2.4.37 with just that. Maybe there will be no 2.4.37, maybe I'll open it if I gather several significant driver/arch updates or build fixes (eg: gcc is not supported beyond 4.1 right now). Regards, Willy