On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 02:53:08AM -0700, Emanoil Kotsev wrote: > I'll stop this discussion. If you feel you are right, then this should > be true and I don't mind it. > > The problem was with you calling 2.6.22 a "such old", but I give up > this discussion too. You have the right to think it is and I have the > right to do not. After I have your point of view I have to live with > that, hope the same for you. 2.6.22 is "old". It was released a full year ago. Since then, 38682 changes have been made to the Linux kernel source tree. That's a _lot_ of changes. So as you can see, lots of things have changed in the past year, making it _very_ difficult for the community to support such an old kernel release. > It would be anyway nice if you do not make such (2.6.22 - "such old") > statments, but if you wish you could and I don't mind either. Based on the rapid development of the Linux kernel, I'm confused as to how you could consider 2.6.22 a "new" kernel? > I think I'll spend my time filing bugs instead of arguing with you, as > it leads to nothing obviously. Please do, we will be glad to fix them as well as we can. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
