> "Barry K. Nathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > In other words, if I understand things correctly, once we have Linux > > 2.4.0-test4294967296 ;) and 2.4 is stable enough for the last phase of > > testing before release, 2.4.0-pre1 will be next... > > That so? Must get Linus an Alpha or SPARC64 ASAP so 2.4.0-test isn't unduly > restricted by version numbers... I just picked 2^32 as a jokingly large number - if I meant to imply a 32-bit limit, I would have done 2^32 - 1 (4294967295) instead. :) (When I was writing the email, I was wondering if I should have made it 4294967297 instead...) -Barry K. Nathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: networking todo, was Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 Andi Kleen
- Re: networking todo, was Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 David S. Miller
- Re: networking todo, was Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 Andi Kleen
- Re: networking todo, was Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: networking todo, was Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 Andi Kleen
- Re: networking todo, was Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 Andrea Arcangeli
- Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 Tom Rini
- Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 (version numbering) Barry K. Nathan
- Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 (version numbering) Tom Rini
- Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 (version numbering) Horst von Brand
- Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 Barry K. Nathan
- Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 David Ford
- Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 Tom Rini
- Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 David Ford
- Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 Rik van Riel
- Re: Linux-2.4.0-test9-pre2 Russell King