From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: reiserfs on redhat advanced server? Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:35:02 +0300 Message-ID: <3E3A6D76.7080300@namesys.com> References: <20030130173522.3aa4d0e1.pegasus@nerv.eu.org> <3E397A19.60409@namesys.com> <20030130234142.E8448@vestdata.no> <3E3A6071.6060102@namesys.com> <20030131115333.GC15359@marowsky-bree.de> <3E3A67AE.4050601@namesys.com> <20030131122147.GE15359@marowsky-bree.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20030131122147.GE15359@marowsky-bree.de> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: Lars Marowsky-Bree Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ragnar_Kj=F8rstad?= , Jure Pecar , reiserfs-list@namesys.com I understand and support being pissed at Linus for calling it 2.4.0 when=20 it wasn't stable enough before 2.4.18 because VM and VFS were still=20 being changed, but Marcelo is pretty stable in all of his official=20 releases, and it is easy to get him to take good code. Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: >On 2003-01-31T15:10:22, > Hans Reiser said: > > =20 > >>The distros are really doing their best to undermine the open source=20 >>community testing process that works so well....=20 >> >>for them to not certify/support a stable Marcelo kernel is.... well it=20 >>makes me angry quite honestly.... >> =20 >> > >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 somethi= ng >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 mainli= ne >doesn't want (yet) etc. The way it works seems to be that distros test dri= ve 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=20 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. Ev= ery >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-Br=E9e > > =20 > I am not really opposed to vendors shipping their own kernels and=20 supporting them, but I am opposed to them not supporting an official=20 stable Marcelo kernel unless they have a specific reason not to. The=20 Marcelo kernels need to be considered the official supported ones by the=20 entire community, regardless of what other ones might also be supported=20 by parts of the community. --=20 Hans