Re: SACK in 2.0.x

James Michael Mastros (root@jennifer-unix.dyn.ml.org)
Sun, 28 Jun 1998 18:21:10 -0400

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Anders Melchiorsen: "Re: [Patch]: SysRQ password protection and such for 2.1.10{7,8pre1}."
Previous message: Elijah L. Wright: "null pointers are bad. :)"
In reply to: Geert Uytterhoeven: "Re: null pointers are bad. :)"

On Sun, Jun 28, 1998 at 02:49:39 PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
> no
That probably deserves a bit more explanation: 2.0.x is a stable tree,
meaning that new things aren't going to be added that aren't:
a) _Absolutly_ neccessary
b) _Certian_ not to break anything.
Whether there is an "and" there or an "or" depends on who you ask.

2.2.0 should be hitting the wire before too long, so [insert your favorite
2.1.x feature here] will be in a stable kernel then.

-=- James Mastros

-- True mastery is knowing enough to bullshit the rest. -=- Me This e-mail is licensed under the OP/L. See www.opencontent.org.

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

Next message: Anders Melchiorsen: "Re: [Patch]: SysRQ password protection and such for 2.1.10{7,8pre1}."
Previous message: Elijah L. Wright: "null pointers are bad. :)"
In reply to: Geert Uytterhoeven: "Re: null pointers are bad. :)"