From: Jan Knutar <jk-lkml@sci.fi>
To: Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
"Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>,
alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Let's make a small change to the process
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 03:51:09 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200410270351.09581.jk-lkml@sci.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4d8e3fd304102613447c0156b2@mail.gmail.com>
On Tuesday 26 October 2004 23:44, Paolo Ciarrocchi wrote:
> If the goal of -ac is to only include those fixes, why can't we rename
> it in something more "intuitive" for the final users ?
> Do you see what I mean ?
"Final users" are those like me, who so far are quite satisfied[1] with the
distribution kernel. Advanced users will be aware of the existence of
other than kernel.org versions of the kernel, and will hopefully be able
to pick one suited to their particular fuzzy feelings.
During 2.4 development (IIRC) it was somewhat fairly generic knowledge
amongst those who had progressed marginally beyond booting linux, to
compiling some kernel from sources, what -ac postfix meant. Why that
sort of community knowledge osmosis wouldn't be possible or active today
also, I do not know. Perhaps people are just in general afraid of change.
[1] As in, the Fedora Core 2 kernel did not immediately give me such awful
performance that it made me get a kernel.org kernel to get back the magnitude
or so performance loss of the typical Redhat9 kernel. Benchmarks purely
subjective of course, sorry. :-/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-27 0:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-26 5:40 My thoughts on the "new development model" Chuck Ebbert
2004-10-26 10:44 ` Ed Tomlinson
2004-10-26 11:09 ` Massimo Cetra
2004-10-26 12:08 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-26 19:03 ` Mathieu Segaud
2004-10-26 20:16 ` Let's make a small change to the process Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-26 20:22 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-26 20:26 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-26 20:33 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-26 20:36 ` Dave Jones
2004-10-26 20:44 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-27 0:51 ` Jan Knutar [this message]
2004-10-26 20:48 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-26 21:00 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-26 15:03 ` My thoughts on the "new development model" William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-26 21:19 ` Ed Tomlinson
2004-10-27 3:05 ` Marcos D. Marado Torres
2004-10-27 4:29 ` Rik van Riel
2004-10-27 5:13 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-10-27 5:23 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 6:04 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-10-27 6:28 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 6:50 ` Massimo Cetra
2004-10-27 6:56 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-11-16 16:43 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-10-27 13:48 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-27 14:57 ` Theodore Ts'o
2004-10-27 15:35 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-27 19:46 ` Marcos D. Marado Torres
2004-10-27 21:08 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-27 21:14 ` Rik van Riel
2004-10-27 17:55 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 13:38 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-27 5:25 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-28 6:46 ` michael
2004-10-28 7:13 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-28 7:28 ` Hacksaw
2004-10-29 21:30 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-10-28 7:57 ` Massimo Cetra
2004-10-28 16:14 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-28 17:27 ` Theodore Ts'o
2004-10-28 23:19 ` michael
2004-10-29 0:02 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-27 4:26 ` Rik van Riel
2004-11-16 16:18 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-10-26 12:37 ` Barry K. Nathan
2004-10-26 14:40 ` Espen Fjellvær Olsen
2004-10-26 14:28 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-26 14:41 ` Gene Heskett
2004-10-26 14:24 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 15:27 ` Alan Cox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-27 2:17 Let's make a small change to the process Chuck Ebbert
2004-10-27 15:05 ` Alan Cox
2004-10-27 20:38 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-10-27 19:50 Chuck Ebbert
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200410270351.09581.jk-lkml@sci.fi \
--to=jk-lkml@sci.fi \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com \
--cc=rddunlap@osdl.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.