On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:07:23PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:11:48AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I object; if and when there ever is a new upstream kernel branch that we > > want to track separately this would have to be reverted, and in the meantime > > it would cause more confusion and work because of the need to shuffle the > > transition packages for users to get a smooth upgrade from etch. > > Hmm, anyone heard of a planned 2.7 or 2.8 tree? My last infos where 2.6 > is being kept for the time being.
yes current upstream stated plan is that there is no need for such trees. as bonus it would separate dkt bug reports. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
