From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932231AbWAUS3w (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:29:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932232AbWAUS3v (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:29:51 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc14.comcast.net ([216.148.227.89]:16339 "EHLO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932231AbWAUS3v (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jan 2006 13:29:51 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Development tree, PLEASE? References: <1137785271.13530.10.camel@grayson> <20060120220440.GA22061@snarc.org> From: Johan Kullstam Organization: none Date: 21 Jan 2006 13:29:44 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20060120220440.GA22061@snarc.org> Message-ID: <8764odbfjb.fsf@sophia.axel.nom> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org tab@snarc.org (Vincent Hanquez) writes: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:27:50PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > So put me in for +1 on the current development model. > > I'ld like to also +1 the current development model. > > However I think the 2.6.X should become 2.X; the 6 is starting to be > meaningless, and it's not going to be upgraded ever with the current > development model. Why not just drop the "2"? It's not like the "2" is going anywhere with current or even with the past development models. 2.X.Y has already been used (for X = 0-6 and modest Y), so 6.16.1 could be used instead of 2.6.16-rc1. > this leave 2.X.Y "namespace" to the current stable team (same > development model as the 2.6.X.Y). -- Johan KULLSTAM