On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 06.11.2013 14:42, schrieb Keith Curtis:
>
>> I don't know if you all should spend time working only on bugs, but I
>> believe more time should be spent on the bug *list*. There are many
>> users patiently waiting for the kernel to work f
On Nov 3, 2013, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> we'll have 4.0 follow 3.19 or something like that.
> we could do a release with just stability and bug-fixes
> the reason I mention "4.0" is that it would be a lovely time to do
> that.
That sounds backwards. .0s are known for instability and major new
Am 06.11.2013 14:42, schrieb Keith Curtis:
I don't know if you all should spend time working only on bugs, but I
believe more time should be spent on the bug *list*. There are many
users patiently waiting for the kernel to work for their computer. The
pleas for help can be read in the bug databas
* Greg KH wrote:
> > Thirdly, _users_ interested in stability can already go to the -stable
> > kernel, will will suck up 1 cycle worth of bugfixes out of the main
> > flow of changes. So users already have a stability choice of v-latest
> > and 'v-latest - 1' - plus the 'long term' stable ke
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 07:25:40AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > So I may be pessimistic, but I'd expect many developers would go "Let's
> > hunt bugs.. Wait. Oooh, shiny" and go off doing some new feature after
> > all instead. Or just take that release off.
> >
I don't know if you all should spend time working only on bugs, but I
believe more time should be spent on the bug *list*. There are many
users patiently waiting for the kernel to work for their computer. The
pleas for help can be read in the bug database. The data can be used
to determine the sele
Am 04.11.2013 20:49, schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
3.14
3.141
3.1415
3.14159
3.141592
3.1415926
(...)
4.0
Since when does \pi converge to 4.0?
Since 3.12 > 3.9. ;)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kerne
> The reason I mention it is because I've been mulling over something
> Dirk Hohndel said during LinuxCon EU and the kernel summit. He asked
> at the Q&A session whether we could do a release with just stability
> and bug-fixes, and I pooh-poohed it because I didn't see most of us
> having the atte
On 11/04/2013 01:10 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
...
Anyway..
Onto a totally different topic: we're getting to release numbers where
I have to take off my socks to count that high again. I'm ok with
3., but I don't want us to get to the kinds of crazy
numbers we had in the 2.x series, so at some
Am 04.11.2013 20:49, schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
3.14
3.141
3.1415
3.14159
3.141592
3.1415926
(...)
4.0
Since when does \pi converge to 4.0?
The attention span of most people is usually limited, so they won't
follow very long. Besides
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> The reason I mention it is because I've been mulling over something
> Dirk Hohndel said during LinuxCon EU and the kernel summit. He asked
> at the Q&A session whether we could do a release with just stability
> and bug-fixes, and I pooh-poo
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> So I may be pessimistic, but I'd expect many developers would go "Let's
>>> hunt bugs.. Wait. Oooh, shiny" and go off doing some new feature after
>>> all instead. Or just take that release off.
>>>
>>> But I do wonder.. Maybe it would be possi
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Alexander Holler wrote:
> 3.14
> 3.141
> 3.1415
> 3.14159
> 3.141592
> 3.1415926
> (...)
> 4.0
Since when does \pi converge to 4.0?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.or
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:25 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> So I may be pessimistic, but I'd expect many developers would go "Let's
>> hunt bugs.. Wait. Oooh, shiny" and go off doing some new feature after
>> all instead. Or just take that release off.
>>
>> But I do wonde
Am 04.11.2013 01:10, schrieb Linus Torvalds:
(...)
Onto a totally different topic: we're getting to release numbers where
I have to take off my socks to count that high again. I'm ok with
3., but I don't want us to get to the kinds of crazy
numbers we had in the 2.x series, so at some point we'r
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I may be pessimistic, but I'd expect many developers would go "Let's
> hunt bugs.. Wait. Oooh, shiny" and go off doing some new feature after
> all instead. Or just take that release off.
>
> But I do wonder.. Maybe it would be possible, and I'm just unfairly
> p
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> And the reason I mention "4.0" is that it would be a lovely time to do
> that. Roughly a years heads-up that "ok, after 3.19 (or whatever),
> we're doing a release with *just* fixes, and then that becomes 4.0".
>
> Comments?
Unless you are p
I was vacillating whether to do an rc8 or just cut the final 3.12, but
since the biggest reason to *not* do a final release was not so much
the state of the code, as simply the fact that I'll be traveling with
very bad internet connection next week, I didn't really want to delay
the release. Sure,
18 matches
Mail list logo
