From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756439Ab1HDA4g (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2011 20:56:36 -0400 Received: from out3.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:37410 "EHLO out3.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756104Ab1HDA4c (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2011 20:56:32 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: LVSzvg0xI7iAw3n8x626gfHvr+GVWQGfTQS4NWtSQJRW 1312419391 Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:54:23 -0700 From: Greg KH To: "Mr. James W. Laferriere" Cc: Linux Kernel Maillist Subject: Re: will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ? Message-ID: <20110804005423.GA28005@kroah.com> References: <20110803232617.GA17426@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:51:03PM -0800, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: > Hello Greg , > > On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Greg KH wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:05:58PM -0800, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: > >> Hello All , Is anyone looking at making 2.6.39.* into a longterm > >>stable ? > > > >No, why would they? > > > >Or, to turn it the other way, why do you feel .39 would be a viable > >longer kernel to maintain? What are you using it for that requires it > >to be handled in this manner? > >thanks, > >greg k-h > Probably no reason at all , But ... It is the final 2.6 kernel version . But what does that really mean? There is no "real" difference between 2.6.39 and 3.0 that is not the same difference between 2.6.38 and 2.6.39. > With 3.0 being released there will only be Yours & the others > maintaining the 2.6.<39 otherwise . Is that a problem? > Ego I guess . Whose? confused. greg k-h