On Saturday 2008-07-19 22:56, david@lang.hm wrote:Which is why it should not be announced early, but happen spontaenously at Linus's discretion, right after the last -rc. Maybe we should also start skipping on numbers like 2.x.4, 2.x.13, and 2.6.66. "What's in a number?" Maybe we should only ever release 2.<odd>.0 to show that there is nothing bad about being an <odd> or a .0 release. --
| James Bottomley | Breakage caused by unreviewed patch in x86 tree |
| Andrew Morton | Re: POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. Transactions, failover, performa... |
| Randy Dunlap | Re: 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 (paravirt/vsmp/no PCI) |
| Arnd Hannemann | 2.6.24-rc8 hangs at mfgpt-timer |
| Theodore Ts'o | Re: SVGA-alphanum. modes |
| Joseph R. Pannon | More install questions |
| Paul Richards | Header files |
| Les Andrzejewski | X386/WD90C31/SUMSUNG SYNC MASTER 4 |
git: | |
| David Miller | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| David Miller | Re: iptables very slow after commit784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
