From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S262641AbSI2P3U>; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:29:20 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S262664AbSI2P3U>; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:29:20 -0400
Received: from zero.aec.at ([193.170.194.10]:16648 "EHLO zero.aec.at")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S262641AbSI2P3U>;
	Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:29:20 -0400
To: jbradford@dial.pipex.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: v2.6 vs v3.0
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209281826050.2198-100000@home.transmeta.com>
	<200209290716.g8T7GNwf000562@darkstar.example.net>
From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Date: 29 Sep 2002 17:34:40 +0200
In-Reply-To: <200209290716.g8T7GNwf000562@darkstar.example.net>
Message-ID: <m3k7l47qsv.fsf@averell.firstfloor.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
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

jbradford@dial.pipex.com writes:

> > The block IO cleanups are important, and that was the major thing _I_ 
> > personally wanted from the 2.5.x tree when it was opened. I agree with you 
> > there. But I don't think they are major-number-material.
> 
> I'd definitely have voted for stable IPV6 being a 3.0.x requirement, but I guess it's a bit late now :-/

Actually current IPv6 is stable and has been for a long time, it's just not 
completely standards compliant (but still quite usable for a lot of people)

If you mean stable implies the latest whizbang features you have a different
meaning of stable than me.

-Andi