From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268091AbUGWVlI (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:41:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268092AbUGWVlI (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:41:08 -0400 Received: from hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de ([129.187.202.12]:26367 "HELO hermes.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S268091AbUGWVlE (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:41:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:40:56 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: A users thoughts on the new dev. model Message-ID: <20040723214055.GR19329@fs.tum.de> References: <40FFD760.8060504@unix.eng.ua.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:58:27PM +0000, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Followup to: > By author: Bill Davidsen > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > I confess I feel that this new model is a return to the bad old days > > when the stable tree wasn't. Sounds as if Andrew is bored with the idea > > of letting 2.7 be the development tree and just being the gatekeeper of > > STABLE new features for 2.6. Perhaps 2.7 should be opened and Andrew > > will have a place to play, and features can drift to 2.6 more slowly. > > > > I think the discussion we had at the kernel summit has been somewhat > misrepresented by LWN et al. What we discussed was really more of a > "soft fork", with the -mm tree serving the purpose of 2.7, rather than > a hard fork with a separate maintainer and putting ourselves in > back/forward-porting hell all over again. > > Note that Andrew's -mm tree *specificially* has infrastructure to keep > changes apart and thus backporting to 2.6 mainstream of patches which > have proven themselves becomes trivial. >... One problem from a user's point of view is that removal of obsolete code that works sufficiently for some users. Andrew said explicitely in a mail to linux-kernel that he'd consider removing devfs "mid-2005" - and it didn't sound as if this would only be a -mm "feature". Even if 2.7 is started this doesn't has to imply that it has to be flooded with big changes - a short 2.7 with relativley few invasive changes might also be an option. > -hpa 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