Craig Milo Rogers <rogers@isi.edu> wrote:The point is to rebase to a new system at a point coming up which is convenient. There is an opportunity at 2.6.28, which can be renamed 2.8.0, dropping the constant 2.6. I suppose one counts 2.8.1, 2.8.2 from then on, or does whatever else one wants to do. I don't know - Linus' only objective is to get smaller more meaningful numbers and the details of how one counts afterwards don't matter. Or if one misses the 2.6.28 point, one gets another good opportunity for rebasing at 2.6.30, which could become 3.0.0, dropping the constant 2.6 again. We need smaller numbers now. I.e. We're happy with the system we've got, except for the high numbers we're at, so just rebase. Peter --
| Jeff Garzik | [PATCH 1/9] irq-remove: core |
| Jamie Lokier | Re: POHMELFS high performance network filesystem. Transactions, failover, performa... |
| Dave Young | Re: 2.6.24-rc3-mm1 |
| Willy Tarreau | Re: From 2.4 to 2.6 to 2.7? |
git: | |
| Dan Miner | Compilation speeds (was Re: No patchlevel 3.} |
| Ian Jackson | RFD: comp.os.linux split |
| X X | X11 GIf viewer somewhere? |
| root | Broken pipe when using reboot/halt, etc. |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| 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(). |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
