Hi Peter,

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 03:22:59PM -0400, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
quoted text
> Any reason to have 2.4.x.y instead of just 2.4.x+y?  I find it somewhat 
> hard to believe there is substantial new development on 2.4, so it 
> really should be all "stable".

Since 2.4.33 there have been a few minor add-ons and backports (support
for gcc4, e1000 update, and mmap_min_addr come to mind). It's important
for me to indicate when users can blindly upgrade (eg: security fix or
real bug) and when they should at least perform a quick revalidation.

This has worked well for quite some time now. Since the changes were
really minor here, I did not want to open 2.4.37 with just that. Maybe
there will be no 2.4.37, maybe I'll open it if I gather several significant
driver/arch updates or build fixes (eg: gcc is not supported beyond 4.1
right now).

Regards,
Willy

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/