On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:One thing I'll happily talk about is that while 2.6.21 was painful, you and Thomas in particular were both very responsible about the thing, so no, I'm not at all complaining or worried about it in that sense! I just really _really_ wish we could have two fairly stable releases in a row. I think 2.6.22 has the potential to be a pretty good setup, and I'd really like to avoid having another 2.6.21 immediately afterwards. So I'm not worried about integration and getting fixes when things break per se, but I *am* worried that this is an area where we've traditionally had lots of unexpected problems. And hey, maybe this time there will be none. I just still smart from the last time, so I'd prefer it to go more smoothly this time around. Linus -
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] Stop pmac_zilog from abusing 8250's device numbers. |
| Andrew Morton | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 010/196] Chinese: add translation of Codingstyle |
| Jan Engelhardt | intel iommu (Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23) |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Felix von Leitner | socket api problem: can't bind an ipv6 socket to ::ffff:0.0.0.0 |
git: | |
