On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Knecht <markkne...@gmail.com> wrote: <SNIP> >> I can pretty much promise you that one area likely to get LOTS of >> attention in this kernel series IS security updates, at least if they >> are kernel based security issues. That a major reason, if not the #1 >> reason, that this series of kernels exists. > > And I think that's excellent; I wasn't even aware of them until today. >
I understand you weren't aware so I'm just trying to gently help you and others understand why this series exists. If you read through the requirements for submitting patches to the long term stable series one point is that an identical/similar patch must exist in the development tree. For security issues those are addressed pretty quickly, and as long as the code works in the earlier code it's conceptually pretty easy for someone to get it included in the long term series. Of course, I'm not a developer so I don't know what is _really_ required, but conceptually it's doable. Cheers, Mark
