From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262177AbVAIBX7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jan 2005 20:23:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262180AbVAIBX6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jan 2005 20:23:58 -0500 Received: from mail.dif.dk ([193.138.115.101]:15597 "EHLO mail.dif.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262177AbVAIBXx (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jan 2005 20:23:53 -0500 Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 02:35:25 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Juhl To: Maciej Soltysiak Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Maybe 2.6.10.1 ? In-Reply-To: <595522059.20050108112557@dns.toxicfilms.tv> Message-ID: References: <595522059.20050108112557@dns.toxicfilms.tv> 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 On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Maciej Soltysiak wrote: > Hello, > > Maybe we should release 2.6.10.1 with those security fixes, > so people maintaining other trees like: -tiny, -ck, -grsec, > release patches over the fixed ones. Users won't miss the > fixes if they prefer some trees instead of vanilla. > > What do you think? > I'd suggest (and I'm a comlete nobody in this regard) that instead Linus takes the security fixes + whatever he and Andrew deems to be "obviously correct and with zero risk of causing trouble" from the current -bk and turns that into 2.6.11-rc1, then let that stew for 2 or 3 days, then unless someone sees something horribly wrong, release it as 2.6.11 - then take whatever else is in current -bk and adds it and then that'll be 2.6.11-bk1 and we move on from there. -- Jesper Juhl