Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

[Chuck Ebbert]

On 06/24/2007 04:54 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, 22 June 2007 19:11, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> On 06/22/2007 11:00 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, 22 June 2007 00:34, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>>>> On 06/21/2007 06:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
>>>>> I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and
>>>>> regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would
>>>>> solve this. In general the 2.6.x.y -stable kernels seem to be doing
>>>>> the job pretty good.
>>>>>
>>>>  
>>>> Even the good ones that get lots of fixes aren't all that good. The
>>>> biggest problem ATM is that suspend is badly broken and keeps getting
>>>> worse...
>>> Can you please provide me with any links to suspend-related bug reports from
>>> you?
>>>
>> I get so many suspend/resume bug reports that I've given up trying
>> to get them fixed. And there are so many bugs that are even worse,
>> like crashes during normal use, data corruption, etc. that suspend
>> bugs don't get much attention. But here are the ones for Fedora 6;
>> the list would be much longer if I included Fedora 5 and 7:
> 
> Can you please tell me what's the relationship between Fedora kernel vesions
> and the kernel.org kernels?
> 

Fedora kernels are as close to upstream as we can get them, but we do add Xen,
Roland's utrace and exec-shield. The list of applied patches may be a bit long
but most of them are bug fixes that we couldn't get into -stable for one reason
or another (some not upstream yet, some judged too big for -stable.)
-
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/