On 5/2/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree. There is no stable 2.6 upstream kernel. That is intentional. The 4th dotted increment (since the 3rd is patchlevel, what is the 4th called? micro?) means nothing to kernel devs anymore. It is not just for bug fixes. New features are often added or at least heavily modified from 2.6.xx.y to 2.6.xx.y+1.
Actually, there is a _very_ strict set of rules followed before a patch is merged and a new .y release is made. A voting takes place and the patch cannot by definition be intrusive. All people involved know _exactly_ what's going on with the patch. Here's part of the guidelines for the -stable branch, as outlined by Linus Torvalds: Also, I'd suggest that a _hard_ rule (ie nobody can override it) would also be that the problem causes an oops, a hang, or a real security problem that somebody can come up with an exploit for (ie no "there could be a two-instruction race" crap. Only "there is a race, and here's how you exploit it"). The exploit wouldn't need to be full code that gets root, but an explanation of it, at least. Full archive can be found at: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/283396 So NO, you or any other LFS developer don't need to test -stable releases. In fact, you probably can't even have tests for a majority of the problems that these patches address in the first place. You simply are not qualified or don't have the means to test for them. A -stable release doesn't break anything. The maintainers strictly adhere to the rules. Please show us changelogs with proof that new features are added or heavily modified between 2.6.x.y and 2.6.x.y+1 and I will crawl back under my rock. Thanks, Ioan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
