From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261448AbVE3RGk (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 May 2005 13:06:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261651AbVE3RGk (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 May 2005 13:06:40 -0400 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.198]:57511 "EHLO wproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261448AbVE3RGi convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 May 2005 13:06:38 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=MAmw+gpVZwm+wfmCKlg7TmwRswWgW3Jr2m9p/lOnRk5c/XVZw50NXWyB5dfc8HRQquRnDbfNKFPNGdZXFcjviR6NDGSBQ3pfPrn8Di3FUzfR5nGdHsajBbyCptcChkxzZdnjVboeDqesula0rhdKc87uUS+m5FHk1C3l5llb+R4= Message-ID: Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:06:38 +0200 From: Schneelocke Reply-To: Schneelocke To: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Kernel Version Explanation Cc: randy_dunlap , sean@capitalgenomix.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, webmaster@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <429A792F.9070806@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Disposition: inline References: <20050529140945.GA4815@cgx-mail.capitalgenomix.com> <20050529112523.17f6e8fa.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <429A792F.9070806@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 30/05/05, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > It looks to me like the word "stable" is overused on the main page > > at www.kernel.org . I would also prefer to see all of the 2.6.* > > kernel versions together, above the 2.4.*, 2.2.*, and 2.0.* lines. > > That's because there isn't an odd-number series right now. Will there ever be one again (at least in the foreseeable future)? We've had "Linus = stable, -mm = unstable" for a long time now, and it seems pretty much official now that there won't be a 2.7 anytime soon. The actual development of new features is happening in the relevant maintainers' trees, anyway, so there simply seems to be no need for a single highly development-oriented tree (like 2.5 was) anymore - quite the contrary. > -hpa -- schnee