Re: "stable" vs "security stable"
From: Coywolf Qi Hunt
Date: Sun Oct 09 2005 - 03:38:31 EST
On 10/9/05, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx <Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:44:38 +0800, Coywolf Qi Hunt said:
> > On 10/9/05, Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx <Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > It is "security stable". Let's take this new notation from now on.
> > "Security Stable" doesn't have to be all security related.
> Tell you what - you convince the -stable team, and I'll go along with it..
Better be "stable" and "base". 22.214.171.124 is the latest stable, 2.6.13
is the latest base.
> > (you want stable@xxxxxxxxxx to replace security@xxxxxxxxxx too?)
> You're the one who called it "security stable" ;)
My fault. I didn't realise stable@xxxxxxxxxx exist, and CCed the wrong
> > What you did is so stupid to me to to use -R every time. -R implies
> > something wrong, and need to revert.
> Umm... my diff had *lower case* -r (recursive), not -R (revert)...
I mean `patch -R'.
Coywolf Qi Hunt
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/