Jochen Striepe wrote:
> On 03 Mar 2005, Massimo Cetra wrote:
> > So, why moving from 2.6.14 to 2.6.15 when, in 2/4 weeks,
> i'll have a
> > more stable 2.6.16 ?
> > Will users help testing an odd release to have a good even
> release ?
> > Or will they consider an even release as important as
Hi,
On 03 Mar 2005, Massimo Cetra wrote:
> So, why moving from 2.6.14 to 2.6.15 when, in 2/4 weeks, i'll have a more
> stable 2.6.16 ?
> Will users help testing an odd release to have a good even release ? Or will
> they consider an even release as important as a -RC release ?
From my exper
Massimo Cetra wrote:
So, why moving from 2.6.14 to 2.6.15 when, in 2/4 weeks, i'll have a more
stable 2.6.16 ?
Will users help testing an odd release to have a good even release ? Or will
they consider an even release as important as a -RC release ?
I think it would be useful for folks to test the
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Massimo Cetra wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that
we used to do on a minor number basis, and instead of
dropping it entirely like we did, we could have just moved it
to the release number, as an indication of what was the
in
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that
> we used to do on a minor number basis, and instead of
> dropping it entirely like we did, we could have just moved it
> to the release number, as an indication of what was the
> intent of the release.
> Co
Linus Torvalds:
Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that we used
to do on a minor number basis, and instead of dropping it entirely like
we did, we could have just moved it to the release number, as an
indication
of what was the intent of the release.
How about taking the idea
6 matches
Mail list logo
