From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266779AbUGUXwh (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:52:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266780AbUGUXwh (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:52:37 -0400 Received: from hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de ([129.187.202.12]:42965 "HELO hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S266779AbUGUXwd (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jul 2004 19:52:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 01:52:28 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Jonathan Corbet , Andrew Morton Cc: Brian Gerst , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs) Message-ID: <20040721235228.GZ14733@fs.tum.de> References: <40FEEEBC.7080104@quark.didntduck.org> <20040721231123.13423.qmail@lwn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040721231123.13423.qmail@lwn.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 05:11:23PM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > Ok, is there anywhere else that isn't subscriber-only that has the scoop? > > For those who weren't here, the basic scoop is this: > > - 2.6 is doing great, despite the fact that (by Andrew's reckoning) some > 10mb/month of patches are going into it. > > - Linus is majorly pleased with how the partnership with Andrew has been > working, and few people feel that he shouldn't be. He is a little > concerned about breaking a highly effective process when 2.7 forks. > > - There is not a whole lot of pressure to create a 2.7 now, but a lot of > interest in getting patches into the mainstream quickly. > > The end result is that there may not be a 2.7 for a while. Instead, > significant patches will continue to go into 2.6, after a vetting period > in -mm. Andrew stated his willingness to consider, for example, > four-level page tables, MODULE_PARM removal, API changes, and more. 2.7 > will only be created when it becomes clear that there are sufficient > patches which are truly disruptive enough to require it. When 2.7 *is* > created, it could be highly experimental, and may turn out to be a > throwaway tree. > > Andrew's vision, as expressed at the summit, is that the mainline kernel > will be the fastest and most feature-rich kernel around, but not, > necessarily, the most stable. Final stabilization is to be done by > distributors (as happens now, really), but the distributors are expected > to merge their patches quickly. > > Anybody disagree with that summary? Thanksfor this mail, this is exactly the information that was missing. Discussing the contents: Changes that remove functionally like Greg's patch are hopefully still 2.7 stuff - 2.6 is a stable kernel series and smooth upgrades inside a stable kernel series are a must for many users. > jon cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed