From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S262563AbVAETOX@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S262563AbVAETOX (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:14:23 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262565AbVAETOV
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:14:21 -0500
Received: from zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com ([47.129.242.56]:47278 "EHLO
	zcars04e.nortelnetworks.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S262563AbVAETOK (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:14:10 -0500
Message-ID: <41DC3B3A.3060709@nortelnetworks.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:08:42 -0600
X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
From: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040115
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
CC: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>, Willy Tarreau <willy@w.ods.org>,
       Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
       Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>, Diego Calleja <diegocg@teleline.es>,
       aebr@win.tue.nl, solt2@dns.toxicfilms.tv, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: starting with 2.7
References: <20050105000942.GA7961@holomorphy.com> <41DC324F.5040009@tmr.com> <20050105185637.GE7961@holomorphy.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050105185637.GE7961@holomorphy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 01:30:39PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> 
>>You fooled me, most of what I hear from developers sounds like "it's 
>>working fine" to me. Linus made it this way, he wants it this way, and 
>>if Alan Cox saying it isn't working well doesn't convince him, nothing 
>>users say is going to matter.
> 
> 
> He did? Message-Id?

What he said was,

"After 2.6.9-ac its clear that the long 2.6.9 process worked very badly. 
While 2.6.10 is looking much better its long period meant the allegedly 
"official" base kernel was a complete pile of insecure donkey turd for 
months. That doesn't hurt most vendor users but it does hurt those 
trying to do stuff on the base kernels very badly."

Chris