From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266546AbUG0UFs (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:05:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266552AbUG0UFs (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:05:48 -0400 Received: from mail.tmr.com ([216.238.38.203]:1548 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266546AbUG0UFf (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:05:35 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: not-for-mail From: Bill Davidsen Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: A users thoughts on the new dev. model Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 16:08:30 -0400 Organization: TMR Associates, Inc Message-ID: References: <20040723214055.GR19329@fs.tum.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1090958403 18456 192.168.12.100 (27 Jul 2004 20:00:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040608 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <20040723214055.GR19329@fs.tum.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:58:27PM +0000, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >>Followup to: >>By author: Bill Davidsen >>In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel >> >>>I confess I feel that this new model is a return to the bad old days >>>when the stable tree wasn't. Sounds as if Andrew is bored with the idea >>>of letting 2.7 be the development tree and just being the gatekeeper of >>>STABLE new features for 2.6. Perhaps 2.7 should be opened and Andrew >>>will have a place to play, and features can drift to 2.6 more slowly. >>> >> >>I think the discussion we had at the kernel summit has been somewhat >>misrepresented by LWN et al. What we discussed was really more of a >>"soft fork", with the -mm tree serving the purpose of 2.7, rather than >>a hard fork with a separate maintainer and putting ourselves in >>back/forward-porting hell all over again. >> >>Note that Andrew's -mm tree *specificially* has infrastructure to keep >>changes apart and thus backporting to 2.6 mainstream of patches which >>have proven themselves becomes trivial. >>... > > > One problem from a user's point of view is that removal of obsolete code > that works sufficiently for some users. > > Andrew said explicitely in a mail to linux-kernel that he'd consider > removing devfs "mid-2005" - and it didn't sound as if this would only be > a -mm "feature". > > Even if 2.7 is started this doesn't has to imply that it has to be > flooded with big changes - a short 2.7 with relativley few invasive > changes might also be an option. I would consider removing devfs or cryptoloop invasive, since they would mean some people just flat-out couldn't use the kernel with their existing system. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me