On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 04:15:41PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> There are also 265 commits in next-20150209 that didn't make it into
> v4.0-rc1.
>
> Top ten first word of commit summary:
>
> 25 rcu
> 24 arm
> 20 selftests
> 19 mm
> 11 arm-soc
> 6 documentatio
Le 24/02/15 11:49, François Valenduc a écrit :
> Le 24/02/15 08:40, Christian Borntraeger a écrit :
>> Am 24.02.2015 um 03:34 schrieb Mike Galbraith:
>>> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 16:43 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
Am 23.02.2015 um 04:06 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> .. let's see how much,
Le 24/02/15 08:40, Christian Borntraeger a écrit :
> Am 24.02.2015 um 03:34 schrieb Mike Galbraith:
>> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 16:43 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> Am 23.02.2015 um 04:06 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
.. let's see how much, if anything, breaks due to the version number.
P
Am 24.02.2015 um 03:34 schrieb Mike Galbraith:
> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 16:43 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>> Am 23.02.2015 um 04:06 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
>>> .. let's see how much, if anything, breaks due to the version number.
>>> Probably less than during the 3.0 timeframe, but I can jus
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 16:43 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am 23.02.2015 um 04:06 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> > .. let's see how much, if anything, breaks due to the version number.
> > Probably less than during the 3.0 timeframe, but I can just imagine
> > somebody checking for meaningful ver
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 9:15 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> There are also 265 commits in next-20150209 that didn't make it into
> v4.0-rc1.
>
> Top ten first word of commit summary:
>
> 25 rcu
> 24 arm
> 20 selftests
> 19 mm
> 11 arm-soc
> 6 documentation
>
Am 23.02.2015 um 04:06 schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> .. let's see how much, if anything, breaks due to the version number.
> Probably less than during the 3.0 timeframe, but I can just imagine
> somebody checking for meaningful versions.
>
> Because the people have spoken, and while most of it was com
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 02/23/15 04:06, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On the other hand, the strongest argument for some people advocating
> > 4.0 seems to have been a wish to see 4.1.15 - because "that was the
> > version of Linux skynet used for the T-800 terminator".
>
>
On 02/23/15 04:06, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On the other hand, the strongest argument for some people advocating
4.0 seems to have been a wish to see 4.1.15 - because "that was the
version of Linux skynet used for the T-800 terminator".
So they have changed our future already as we will likely hit
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As usual, the executive friendly graph is at
> http://neuling.org/linux-next-size.html :-)
>
> I haven't done these for a while, so I haven't included a previous
> release for comparison.
>
> (No merge commits counted, next-201
Hi Linus,
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> Because the people have spoken, and while most of it was complete
> gibberish, numbers don't lie. People preferred 4.0, and 4.0 it shall
> be. Unless somebody can come up with a good argument against it.
Thanks for the release we
Hi all,
As usual, the executive friendly graph is at
http://neuling.org/linux-next-size.html :-)
I haven't done these for a while, so I haven't included a previous
release for comparison.
(No merge commits counted, next-20150209 was the last linux-next before
the merge window opened.)
Commits i
.. let's see how much, if anything, breaks due to the version number.
Probably less than during the 3.0 timeframe, but I can just imagine
somebody checking for meaningful versions.
Because the people have spoken, and while most of it was complete
gibberish, numbers don't lie. People preferred 4.0,
13 matches
Mail list logo
