On Aug 24, 2011, at 06:46, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:33:56PM +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 17, 2011, at 00:33, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:26:24PM +0200, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
[snip]
>>> Are they
>>> somehow not doing this job well?
>>
>>
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:33:56PM +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>
> On Aug 17, 2011, at 00:33, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:26:24PM +0200, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
> >> I'd like to echo Ben's sentiment, particularly in the area of automotive.
> >> A car has to be supported with
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 01:20:37PM -0700, da...@lang.hm wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
>
> >>Do they need help from the community
> >>instead to help define, implement, and maintain this for them?
> >
> >I think the answer is yes.
> >
>
> to expand on this a bit.
>
> it's a
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Jeremiah Foster wrote:
Do they need help from the community
instead to help define, implement, and maintain this for them?
I think the answer is yes.
to expand on this a bit.
it's a lot easier to look at changelogs and see if a -stable or -longterm
update is relavent
On Aug 17, 2011, at 00:33, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:26:24PM +0200, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
>> I'd like to echo Ben's sentiment, particularly in the area of automotive.
>> A car has to be supported with parts for at least ten years, often longer,
>> and this includes the buil
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:26:24PM +0200, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote:
> I'd like to echo Ben's sentiment, particularly in the area of automotive.
> A car has to be supported with parts for at least ten years, often longer,
> and this includes the build system for the infotainment software.
> The GE
On Aug 16, 2011, at 4:09, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 21:15 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> [...]
>> Today:
>>
>> Now that 2.6.32 is over a year and a half, and the enterprise distros
>> are off doing their thing with their multi-year upgrade cycles, there's
>> no real need from the dis
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:09:02AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> I see that you've accepted Willy Tarreau's offer to take over 2.6.32.y,
> so if you could just formalise that before /. goes wild over the looming
> end of all the above distributions, that would be nice. :-)
The distros were doin
On Sun, 2011-08-14 at 21:15 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
[...]
> Today:
>
> Now that 2.6.32 is over a year and a half, and the enterprise distros
> are off doing their thing with their multi-year upgrade cycles, there's
> no real need from the distros for a new longterm kernel release. But it
> turns ou
9 matches
Mail list logo