Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem

From: Greg KH (greg@kroah.com)
Date: Thu Oct 03 2002 - 17:30:28 EST

Next message: $B5HF#1QL@(: "Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Miscellaneous clean-ups"
Previous message: Robert Love: "Re: export of sys_call_table"
In reply to: jbradford@dial.pipex.com: "Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem"
Next in thread: jbradford@dial.pipex.com: "Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem"
Reply: jbradford@dial.pipex.com: "Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 05:16:10PM +0100, jbradford@dial.pipex.com wrote:
>
> Hmmm, then for 3.0 I'd vote for fully working and proven stable:

Hm, how do you "prove" any of these are stable :)

> * Bluetooth

Been there since 2.4

> * USB (2)

Present in 2.5 (and 2.4 now too)

> * IEEE 1394

Been there since 2.4.

thanks,

greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: $B5HF#1QL@(: "Re: [PATCH] IPv6: Miscellaneous clean-ups"
Previous message: Robert Love: "Re: export of sys_call_table"
In reply to: jbradford@dial.pipex.com: "Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem"
Next in thread: jbradford@dial.pipex.com: "Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem"
Reply: jbradford@dial.pipex.com: "Re: [OT] 2.6 not 3.0 - (WAS Re: [PATCH-RFC] 4 of 4 - New problem"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:42 EST