On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 07:43:36AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > I don't think we'd want 2.6.10 to enter sarge until we had consensus > > that it should replace 2.6.8 as the sarge 2.6, though I'm sure we meant > > the same thing. > Which is "release sarge", isn't it ? :-) > I guess that a lot of people around have already been on a Debian > booth in an expo, but I can assure you that people I've seen coming at > our booth in the french expo these days just don't care about > the latest sexy kernel or whatever but they have always the very same > question. > So, please please please, people who will attend this meeting, only > focus on that one topic and have all your discussions driven by it and > only it. > I won't attend it and even if I would, I would give you folks no > valuable input except that one you already know. > I still have to understand whether 2.6.8 is suitable for a release or > not. It may not be perfect but, given what I currently feel about the > Linux kernel from my dummy point of view, it will never be, nor will > 2.6.10, 2.6.11 and 2.6.whatever. So, unless there are security issues > with that kernel, I think we probably have to live with it and work on > backporting the fixes we need for release critical issues. The log of this discussion of the issues with 2.6.8, and the trade-offs with trying to switch to 2.6.10, can be found now at <http://minbar.dodds.net/~vorlon/kernel-2.6.10-discussion.log>. There are no security issues involved, but there are clearly some problems with trying to backport fixes for the current problems faced with 2.6.8. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature