On Iau, 2005-03-03 at 01:27, Dave Jones wrote: > In an ideal world, we'd see a single 'y' release of 2.6.x.y, but if x+1 takes > too long to be released, bits of x+1 should also appear in x.y+1 > The only question in my mind is 'how critical does a bug have to be to > justify a .y release. Once a new 'x' release comes out, the previous x.y > would likely no longer get any further fixes (unless someone decides the > new 'x' sucked so bad).
Do the statistics on rate of discovery of security problems (generally low priority and by good guys/verification tools) and you are looking at about x.y.8 or so assuming there are no 2.x.y.z releases for post release howlers. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
