Shared publicly  - 
Linux kernel 3.0.4 release, in patch form, for those that keep asking me where it is due to the current disruption.
Hi all, As I'm getting more and more requests every day for the latest stable kernel patch, I figured it's best if I just email it out to the list, so that everyone can have a copy of it witho...
Lokesh Venkatashiah's profile photoUniversal-Pneis Bus's profile photoGreg Kroah-Hartman's profile photoAlan Cox's profile photo
Why not just publish the git tree somewhere else (gitorious/github?) with a signed tag? As I track the stable git tree branches a monolithic patch against 3.0 will be outside the normal history.
I don't really feel like using github for this at the moment, all you really need is this patch file if you need to build a 3.0.4 kernel for something.

Or am I missing some reason why a git tree would be better here? No one should ever be doing development off of the stable git tree, if you are, you are doing something seriously wrong.
While I don't code against the stable tree I do like to review what goes in it before deciding if it's worth building. That's a lot easier with a git tree with the full history than eyeballing the a large patch (which seems unsigned on the archive page you linked to). I assume you have a git tree internally which represents the 3.0-stable patch series?

As +Linus Torvalds says the fact git is a distributed SCM should mean it's easy to distribute the tree anywhere. Nothing should rely on having a to distribute from. If you don't want to use github then fine, you can host it via http for all I care ;-)
+Alex Bennée yes, I have a git tree locally, it's the same that used to be hosted at, but I don't really feel like putting it up somewhere. You can review the individual patches from the archives if you want to review individual patches and reconstruct the tree yourself if necessary.

You can also get the "raw" signed email from there as well if you don't trust the signature.
I would really appreciate either a signed patch or a signed tag for 3.0.5.
I provided a signed 3.0.5-rc1, why wouldn't I provide a signed 3.0.5 patch as well? :)
This patch doesn't seem to include the grsecurity patch, why is that so?
Add a comment...