[uml-devel] Re: [uml-user] [POLL] Putting UML/2.4 into "fixes-only" mode

["D. Bahi" <dbahi@enterasys.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1127 bytes --]

I would like a 2.4 that is stable. with a working hostfs.
(that i can run valgrind against - heh, not umls fault here.)
Also, the uml web site needs to be authoritative. building
the above should not require patching from additional
sources announced on the list.

That said, 2.4 and 2.6 are both 'stable' kernel branches
that have had quite a bit of UML development in them. So,
if it helps future maintaining of both 2.4 and 2.6, at
least until 2.7 appears, then do what you need to do.
please don't abandon 2.4 until 2.7 is well under way.

Maybe you could break up the 2.4 patches into 'stable'
'testing' and 'experimental' ?

db

Blaisorblade wrote:

>Jeff, I've seen the beginning of your work on back-porting all the patches 
>from 2.6 to 2.4...
>
>It's a huge work, but what is more important, it could obviously hurt 
>stability...
>
>So, I'd suggest to follow this policy to choose the work to merge:
>
>- reduce *a lot* what is going to be merged... no new features, no code 
>cleanups (especially NOT the Makefiles cleanups)...
>
>- concentrate on stability... and on backing out the hostfs rewrite.
>  
>

-- 
db


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]