Re: Minimum kernel version supported by v4l-dvb

[Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:42:17 -0600 (CST), kilgota@banach.math.auburn.edu wrote:
> This is not exactly what I was trying to say. I'll try again.
> 
> 1. Anyone who would call himself a developer will run quite recent kernels 
> without being forced to do so, voluntarily and with pleasure.
> 
> 2. Sometimes the kernel which just came out has a bug. The bug can 
> interfere with current work even though it is from another kernel 
> subsystem. I mentioned a recent example. The problem was in the basic USB 
> area. It specifically related to devices running on alt0 and using a bulk 
> endpoint. I was trying to support a camera that streams on alt0 over the 
> bulk endpoint. Said bug seriously interfered with progress. Who would say 
> that everyone should simultaneously use the same tree, suggests that 
> everyone should simultaneously experience the same set of bugs.
> 
> 3. Because of (2) and for other obvious reasons, the ability to develop 
> a kernel subsystem semi-independently of the latest git tree is a clever 
> and good thing. Why give it up and tie oneself to just one git tree?
> 
> 4. If it were my decision, I probably would not tie myself in knots if 
> something new would "break" a kernel which is more than a couple of 
> versions behind. Right now, this would probably mean I would not care at 
> all what happened to people running 2.6.24.x or older. Furthermore, if 
> what was "broken" was due to a bug in the old kernel, too bad.
> 
> 5. So I would continue to allow flexibility but I would not become 
> extremely concerned if a kernel more than a couple of versions behind 
> would start to have problems. I would try to be nice and let people know, 
> unless they started to shout at me, at which point I  would start to 
> ignore them.
> 
> Probably all of the above would please nobody, and it is a good that I am 
> not in charge of anything.

Actually, it would totally please me :)

-- 
Jean Delvare