From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266263AbUGVPFX (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:05:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266311AbUGVPFX (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:05:23 -0400 Received: from smtp-a.ua.edu ([130.160.4.38]:13202 "EHLO smtp-a.ua.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266263AbUGVPD3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:03:29 -0400 Message-ID: <40FFD760.8060504@unix.eng.ua.edu> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:04:00 -0500 From: Evan Hisey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040510 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: A users thoughts on the new dev. model Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To the Dev list: First, thanks for all the work on the kernel. I try to keep up with the list via both KernelTrap and Kerneltraffic. Today I just saw the discussion on the new development model. As an end use of the vanilla tree, I would like to point out that a large number of people and projects rely on the vanilla kernel to be the stable tree do to the overly varied and random patching nature of vendor supplied kernels making them hard to call reliable. In the case of my preferred distro Slackware, the distro itself expects the vanilla tree to be stable and reliable enough to not need any patches. I believe this is the case for a large number off distro' s and end users. Thank you for your time. Please send any flames,comments, or complaints via CC, as I am not sucribed to the list. Evan Hisey