> Strange, as someone directly involved in developing RHEL6, I thought that I would know more about how we did than you did.
I'm sure you do. However, you might note that *I* did not say it was 2.6.32-stable based either, only that it was 2.6.32 based...
> Our developers would post to upstream tip, flag patches for stable and provide a backport to RHEL6.
So you're saying Maximilian didn't actually need to look at the RHEL6 source at all, because all of the bugfix patches RHEL6's kernel includes have already been flagged for backport to upstream stable branches? I get the impression that he wouldn't agree with that statement, but for myself, I have no information for or against.
If that is true, that would certainly make it *much* less of a problem that it's difficult for other people to do the work of checking out the patches.