From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268677AbUHYUlq (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:41:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268602AbUHYUjE (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:39:04 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([216.238.38.203]:8198 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268590AbUHYUf4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:35:56 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: Bill Davidsen Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.9-rc1 Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 16:36:28 -0400 Organization: TMR Associates, Inc Message-ID: References: <805tv1-ec2.ln1@tux.abusar.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1093465771 2830 192.168.12.100 (25 Aug 2004 20:29:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <805tv1-ec2.ln1@tux.abusar.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dâniel Fraga wrote: > In article <412BD946.1080908@linux-user.net>, > Daniel Andersen writes: > > >>As Linus initially said, there is the possibility of releasing a bug-fix >>patch 2.6.8.2 *after* 2.6.9 has been released. This can make things very > > > Why does this could happen? Do you agree with me that when 2.6.9 is > released, all future versions should be based on 2.6.9? Or it's a BK > issue I don't know? > > >>confusing when patch-2.6.9 is against 2.6.8.1 and not 2.6.8.2 (or >>2.6.8). So if we use a rule of always patching against the first x.y.Z >>release (and not the last x.y.z.W by the time the new x.y.Z is released) >>we can assure consistence in the patch management. > > > Ok, I understand the problem. But isn't it possible to avoid > releasing some 2.6.8.x version after 2.6.9? I mean, I'm not > understanding why this could happen. > > Ps: sorry if this question is silly, but I didn't get the point why > 2.6.8.2 could be released after 2.6.9. > Say an evil bug is discovered in 2.6.8.1 about the time people find out that cdrecord and vmware don't run on 2.6.9 and Oracle causes a massive memory leak. Since the developers seem to totally disregard pre-release testing with any 3rd party or closed source software, this isn't totally out of the question. So out comes 2.6.8.2 to protect the honor and virtue of all the users who run 3rd party software for some silly reason like needing it to make a living. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me