* will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?
@ 2011-08-03 20:05 Mr. James W. Laferriere
2011-08-03 23:26 ` Greg KH
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mr. James W. Laferriere @ 2011-08-03 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel Maillist
Hello All , Is anyone looking at making 2.6.39.* into a longterm
stable ?
Tia , JimL
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network&System Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux |
| babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?
2011-08-03 20:05 will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ? Mr. James W. Laferriere
@ 2011-08-03 23:26 ` Greg KH
2011-08-04 0:51 ` Mr. James W. Laferriere
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2011-08-03 23:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mr. James W. Laferriere; +Cc: Linux Kernel Maillist
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:05:58PM -0800, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> Hello All , Is anyone looking at making 2.6.39.* into a longterm
> stable ?
No, why would they?
Or, to turn it the other way, why do you feel .39 would be a viable
longer kernel to maintain? What are you using it for that requires it
to be handled in this manner?
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?
2011-08-03 23:26 ` Greg KH
@ 2011-08-04 0:51 ` Mr. James W. Laferriere
2011-08-04 0:54 ` Greg KH
2011-08-06 9:38 ` david
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mr. James W. Laferriere @ 2011-08-04 0:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg KH; +Cc: Linux Kernel Maillist
Hello Greg ,
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:05:58PM -0800, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
>> Hello All , Is anyone looking at making 2.6.39.* into a longterm
>> stable ?
>
> No, why would they?
>
> Or, to turn it the other way, why do you feel .39 would be a viable
> longer kernel to maintain? What are you using it for that requires it
> to be handled in this manner?
> thanks,
> greg k-h
Probably no reason at all , But ... It is the final 2.6 kernel version .
With 3.0 being released there will only be Yours & the others
maintaining the 2.6.<39 otherwise .
Ego I guess .
Thank you for responding .
Twyl , JimL
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| James W. Laferriere | System Techniques | Give me VMS |
| Network&System Engineer | 3237 Holden Road | Give me Linux |
| babydr@baby-dragons.com | Fairbanks, AK. 99709 | only on AXP |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?
2011-08-04 0:51 ` Mr. James W. Laferriere
@ 2011-08-04 0:54 ` Greg KH
2011-08-06 9:38 ` david
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Greg KH @ 2011-08-04 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mr. James W. Laferriere; +Cc: Linux Kernel Maillist
On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:51:03PM -0800, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> Hello Greg ,
>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:05:58PM -0800, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> >> Hello All , Is anyone looking at making 2.6.39.* into a longterm
> >>stable ?
> >
> >No, why would they?
> >
> >Or, to turn it the other way, why do you feel .39 would be a viable
> >longer kernel to maintain? What are you using it for that requires it
> >to be handled in this manner?
> >thanks,
> >greg k-h
> Probably no reason at all , But ... It is the final 2.6 kernel version .
But what does that really mean? There is no "real" difference between
2.6.39 and 3.0 that is not the same difference between 2.6.38 and
2.6.39.
> With 3.0 being released there will only be Yours & the others
> maintaining the 2.6.<39 otherwise .
Is that a problem?
> Ego I guess .
Whose?
confused.
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ?
2011-08-04 0:51 ` Mr. James W. Laferriere
2011-08-04 0:54 ` Greg KH
@ 2011-08-06 9:38 ` david
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: david @ 2011-08-06 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mr. James W. Laferriere; +Cc: Greg KH, Linux Kernel Maillist
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:05:58PM -0800, Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
>>> Hello All , Is anyone looking at making 2.6.39.* into a longterm
>>> stable ?
>>
>> No, why would they?
>>
>> Or, to turn it the other way, why do you feel .39 would be a viable
>> longer kernel to maintain? What are you using it for that requires it
>> to be handled in this manner?
>> thanks,
>> greg k-h
> Probably no reason at all , But ... It is the final 2.6 kernel
> version .
>
> With 3.0 being released there will only be Yours & the others
> maintaining the 2.6.<39 otherwise .
but 3.0 has the same changes that would have been in 2.6.40, would you be
looking for a long-term release of 2.6.39 if it had been called 2.6.40
instead of 3.0.0? if not, why would you with a different number on the
same content?
David Lang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-08-06 9:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-08-03 20:05 will someone make 2.6.39.* a longterm ? Mr. James W. Laferriere
2011-08-03 23:26 ` Greg KH
2011-08-04 0:51 ` Mr. James W. Laferriere
2011-08-04 0:54 ` Greg KH
2011-08-06 9:38 ` david
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).