From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 03:56:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 03:56:06 -0400 Received: from 62-190-216-37.pdu.pipex.net ([62.190.216.37]:30724 "EHLO darkstar.example.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 03:56:06 -0400 From: jbradford@dial.pipex.com Message-Id: <200209290716.g8T7GNwf000562@darkstar.example.net> Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0 To: torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 08:16:23 +0100 (BST) Cc: jdickens@ameritech.net, torvalds@transmeta.com, mingo@elte.hu, jgarzik@pobox.com, kessler@us.ibm.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, saw@saw.sw.com.sg, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com, andre@master.linux-ide.org In-Reply-To: from "Linus Torvalds" at Sep 28, 2002 06:31:45 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > The block IO cleanups are important, and that was the major thing _I_ > personally wanted from the 2.5.x tree when it was opened. I agree with you > there. But I don't think they are major-number-material. I'd definitely have voted for stable IPV6 being a 3.0.x requirement, but I guess it's a bit late now :-/ > Anyway, people who are having VM trouble with the current 2.5.x series, > please _complain_, and tell what your workload is. Don't sit silent and > make us think we're good to go.. And if Ingo is right, I'll do the 3.0.x > thing. I think the broken IDE in 2.5.x has meant that it got seriously less testing overall than previous development trees :-(. Maybe after halloween when it stabilises a bit more we'll get more reports in. John