Re: starting with 2.7

[Paolo Ciarrocchi]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:31:46 -0500, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 03:03:26PM +0100, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> >
> >>What's wrong in keeping the release management as is now plus
> >>introducing a 2.6.X.Y series of kernels ?
> >>
> >>In short:
> >>http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=109882220123966&w=2
> >
> >
> > Currently (2.6.10), there would have been 11 such branches.
> >
> > If a security vulnerability was found today, this meant backporting and
> > applying the patch to 11 different kernel versions, the oldest one being
> > more than one year old.
> >
> > With more 2.6 versions, there would be even more branches, and the
> > oldest ones becoming more and more different from the current codebase.
> >
> > You could at some point start dropping the oldest branches, but this
> > would mean a migration to a more recent branch for all users of this
> > branch.
> >
> > OTOH, if you migrated relatively late at 2.4.17 to the 2.4 branch, this
> > branch is still actively maintained today, more than 3 years later.
>
> I don't think that's what he meant (I hope not) and I know it's not what
> I had in mind. What I was suggesting is that until 2.6.11 comes out, all
> patches which are fixes (existing feature doesn't work, oops, security
> issues, or other "unusable with the problem triggered" cases) would go
> into 2.6.10.N, where N would be a small number unless we had another 100
> day release cycle.

Yes, that is what I meant.

--
Paolo
Personal home page: www.ciarrocchi.tk
-
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/