From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8341 invoked by uid 1002); 20 Oct 2003 04:25:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 29904 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2003 04:25:35 -0000 Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:25:30 -0400 From: Jon Portnoy To: Luke-Jr Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org, Brandon Hale Message-ID: <20031020042530.GA13519@cerberus.oppresses.us> References: <1066617251.991.5.camel@sfa237013.richmond.edu> <20031020032034.GA29403@emu.gentoo.org> <200310200416.14653.luke-jr@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200310200416.14653.luke-jr@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Patches and the 2.4->2.6 move X-Archives-Salt: 7135c489-d047-4fca-ba51-0427096a236d X-Archives-Hash: 0dca55cb3504585bc3dcc07f5ba159a9 On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 04:16:08AM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Monday 20 October 2003 03:20 am, Brandon Hale wrote: > > It appears that the larger part of our user base is running a 2.4 series > > kernel, and will be for quite some time. Considering this, and our position > > that testing kernels are not offically supported, I think we should give > > priority to fixing bugs that affect the most users. > I was thinking that once 2.6.0 was final, the kernel people would (hopefully) > release a gentoo-sources using 2.6 in unstable... If this is not the case, > would anyone mind if love-sources were to be added to the portage tree or is > there any reason not to? Yes. The last thing we need is more kernel sources in the tree, especially from amateurs. The kernel people will get a 2.6 kernel out when it's ready to be used, I'd assume. -- Jon Portnoy avenj/irc.freenode.net -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list