Re: reiserfs on redhat advanced server?

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

I understand and support being pissed at Linus for calling it 2.4.0 when 
it wasn't stable enough before 2.4.18 because VM and VFS were still 
being changed, but Marcelo is pretty stable in all of his official 
releases, and it is easy to get him to take good code.

Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:

>On 2003-01-31T15:10:22,
>   Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> said:
>
>  
>
>>The distros are really doing their best to undermine the open source 
>>community testing process that works so well.... 
>>
>>for them to not certify/support a stable Marcelo kernel is.... well it 
>>makes me angry quite honestly....
>>    
>>
>
>Tell that to the ISVs. And the plain kernel, when it comes out, is usually
>simply not really useable as a distro kernel until, oh, dot twenty something
>or so, for a variety of reasons.
>
>>From "buzzwords" like 'enterprise features missing' or missing support for
>hardware to different schedulers, accomodations for IHVs/ISVs which mainline
>doesn't want (yet) etc. The way it works seems to be that distros test drive a
>lot of code before it gets merged into mainline, at the expense of mainline
>being slightly behind quite often.
>
So it should be the mainline that is certified....

>
>And at the time when distributions hit their respective deadlines, even a
>bunch of just plain fixes will have already piled up for the last stable
>vanilla kernel, so they get thrown in too, mostly from "pre" kernels.
>
This is legitimate (or at least it is for SuSE because they seem to be 
able to do it well).

>
>I'm not saying this is good or bad, but it is just they way it is. I can't
>really see a distribution shipping a plain, unpatched kernel. Trust me. Every
>distributor would love too, because it would lower cost for them. You know how
>much highly qualified _work_ is needed to maintain a distribution kernel?
>Nobody does that out of their own free will.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>
>
>  
>

I am not really opposed to vendors shipping their own kernels and 
supporting them, but I am opposed to them not supporting an official 
stable Marcelo kernel unless they have a specific reason not to.  The 
Marcelo kernels need to be considered the official supported ones by the 
entire community, regardless of what other ones might also be supported 
by parts of the community.

-- 
Hans