Re: DPN 02/2013 frozen. Please review and translate.
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Thank you Francesca and everyone. Here are my remarks:
>
>> Ben Hutchings, member of the Debian Kernel team and maintainer of the
>> 3.2.y stable series at kernel.org, wrote a series of three blogposts (<a
>> href="http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/whats-in-the-linux-kernel-for-debian-70-wheezy-part-1.html";>part
>> 1</a>,
>> <a href="http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/whats-in-the-linux-kernel-for-debian-70-wheezy-part-2.html";>part
>> 2</a>,
>> <a href="http://womble.decadent.org.uk/blog/whats-in-the-linux-kernel-for-debian-70-wheezy-part-3.html";>part
>> 3</a>) about the additional features of the Debian Linux kernel that will be
>> shipped with the next Debian stable.
>
> There are now several kernels in Debian; s/"Debian Kernel"/"Debian's Linux".
In fact my last edit was adding the "Linux" lower down - partly just
to dilute the concentration of references to Debian. I didn't add it
in the first line because the team really is called the "Debian
Kernel" team.
> "3.2.y" is unclear. Just "3.2" will do.
"3.2.y" is strange, I'll agree, but it's the name of the git tree as
mentioned in the postings... 3.2 would certainly be clearer if it's
true, but I've been treading carefully.
> "the additional features of the Debian Linux kernel that will be
> shipped with the next Debian stable" is unclear. We should explain
> that wheezy will ship a modified version of Linux 3.2 with features
> not present in vanilla Linux 3.2.
It doesn't need to explain *everything*, because after all it's
pointing at a source that does that, but I suppose we could insert
some extra hint in that direction. I'll try:
[...] about the additional features not featured in mainline 3.2 that will
be included in the Linux kernel to be shipped with the next Debian stable.
--
JBR A long time ago this practice was followed, especially in the
upper classes, but today even the children of the lower classes
perform no executions, and this is extreme negligence.
- "Hagakure", Yamamoto Tsunetomo (1716)
Reply to: