From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262383AbVAKUAM (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 15:00:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262407AbVAKT7v (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:59:51 -0500 Received: from quechua.inka.de ([193.197.184.2]:56238 "EHLO mail.inka.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262383AbVAKT70 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:59:26 -0500 From: Bernd Eckenfels To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 Organization: Deban GNU/Linux Homesite In-Reply-To: <41E40E9D.9090502@comcast.net> X-Newsgroups: ka.lists.linux.kernel User-Agent: tin/1.7.6-20040906 ("Baleshare") (UNIX) (Linux/2.6.8.1 (i686)) Message-Id: Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:59:20 +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article <41E40E9D.9090502@comcast.net> you wrote: > A few bugfix backports may be fine, though that's already light to fair > work (depending on how many security bugs are being found and need > backporting, versus how many can patch clean without porting); How do > you people maintain 4 ACTIVE branches? Because those people are many, and as long as there are volunteers to maintain a branch, nobody can stop them from doing so. BTW: I generally agree with you, that adding features should be limited. However stuff like new drivers or subsystems which have their own lifecylce and small impact are added to stable just because the innovations are needed by the users (most often because of new hardware or generally more stability or performance) Bernd