will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?

will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?

[Mr. James W. Laferriere]

 	Hello All ,  Is anyone looking at making 2.6.39.* into a longterm 
stable ?

 		Tia ,  JimL
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
| Network&System Engineer | 3237     Holden Road |  Give me Linux  |
| babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 |   only  on  AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?

[Greg KH]

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

Re: will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?

[Mr. James W. Laferriere]

 	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 .

 	With 3.0 being released there will only be Yours & the others 
maintaining the 2.6.<39 otherwise .

 	Ego I guess .

 	Thank you for responding .

 		Twyl ,  JimL
-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
| Network&System Engineer | 3237     Holden Road |  Give me Linux  |
| babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 |   only  on  AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

Re: will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?

[Greg KH]

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

Re: will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?

[david]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:

> 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 .
>
> 	With 3.0 being released there will only be Yours & the others 
> maintaining the 2.6.<39 otherwise .

but 3.0 has the same changes that would have been in 2.6.40, would you be 
looking for a long-term release of 2.6.39 if it had been called 2.6.40 
instead of 3.0.0? if not, why would you with a different number on the 
same content?

David Lang