On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 05:50:13PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > On 02/07/07, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There's another reason I'd like to get this done for F8. > > I'd still really like us to ship 2.6.23 for f8, but with the shorter > > devel schedule, it's unclear if it's going to land upstream in time. > > We've shipped -rc's as GA kernels before, but I always felt 'dirty' for > > doing this (especially when we name them incorrectly). > > Shipping it with 'rc3' or whatever in the title seems a little more > > honest at least about what we're shipping, and at the same time, > > it prevents bad reviewers from writing "Fedora still ships with a 2.6.22 > > kernel". > > Sort of related to this - it's (usually? often?) the case that the > shipped kernel is based on a "stable" point release - eg. on this F-7 > box, the kernel is based on 2.6.21.2 according to the %changelog, and > yet the kernel rpm is kernel-2.6.21-1.3228. Would it not be sensible > to also add that last point number? Sounds sensible. I did try a long time ago (when 2.6.x.y first began) and it broke something which I now forget, but it's probably something that just needs a bit more thought. > ps. Sorry to Dave for sending this mail to him alone rather than the list > pps. Why does this list not set the Reply-To to the list rather than > the message sender? http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk _______________________________________________ Fedora-kernel-list mailing list Fedora-kernel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
