From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from zone0.gcu-squad.org ([212.85.147.21]:38226 "EHLO services.gcu-squad.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753073AbZBUUEu (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:04:50 -0500 Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:04:28 +0100 From: Jean Delvare To: kilgota@banach.math.auburn.edu Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Hans Verkuil , urishk@yahoo.com, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Minimum kernel version supported by v4l-dvb Message-ID: <20090221210428.15d96814@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: References: <43235.62.70.2.252.1234947353.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> <20090218071041.63c09ba3@pedra.chehab.org> <20090218140105.17c86bcb@hyperion.delvare> <20090220212327.410a298b@pedra.chehab.org> <20090220231820.67ce2899@pedra.chehab.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:42:17 -0600 (CST), kilgota@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote: > This is not exactly what I was trying to say. I'll try again. > > 1. Anyone who would call himself a developer will run quite recent kernels > without being forced to do so, voluntarily and with pleasure. > > 2. Sometimes the kernel which just came out has a bug. The bug can > interfere with current work even though it is from another kernel > subsystem. I mentioned a recent example. The problem was in the basic USB > area. It specifically related to devices running on alt0 and using a bulk > endpoint. I was trying to support a camera that streams on alt0 over the > bulk endpoint. Said bug seriously interfered with progress. Who would say > that everyone should simultaneously use the same tree, suggests that > everyone should simultaneously experience the same set of bugs. > > 3. Because of (2) and for other obvious reasons, the ability to develop > a kernel subsystem semi-independently of the latest git tree is a clever > and good thing. Why give it up and tie oneself to just one git tree? > > 4. If it were my decision, I probably would not tie myself in knots if > something new would "break" a kernel which is more than a couple of > versions behind. Right now, this would probably mean I would not care at > all what happened to people running 2.6.24.x or older. Furthermore, if > what was "broken" was due to a bug in the old kernel, too bad. > > 5. So I would continue to allow flexibility but I would not become > extremely concerned if a kernel more than a couple of versions behind > would start to have problems. I would try to be nice and let people know, > unless they started to shout at me, at which point I would start to > ignore them. > > Probably all of the above would please nobody, and it is a good that I am > not in charge of anything. Actually, it would totally please me :) -- Jean Delvare