From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: "Song Sam" <samlinuxppc@yahoo.com.cn>
Cc: Eugene Surovegin <ebs@ebshome.net>,
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>,
Embedded Linux PPC list <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
Subject: Re: 2.4 versus 2.6 patches
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 10:27:52 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407261021120.6190@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040726134847.84704.qmail@web15214.mail.bjs.yahoo.com>
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, [gb2312] Song Sam wrote:
> Sorry,I got you wrong.I was a little too sensitive to
> see 2.4 with "dead".Just gave my opinion on 2.4 kernel
> on embedded development.
Deployment if you're already almost ready to ship is sane enough, I
suppose -- but to actually put more effort into 2.4 wouldn't make much
sense.
> It was really a puzzle for me why 2.4 is NOT a viable,
> maintainable platform but it is used more than 2.6.x
> in many embedded development.Also why to see 2.4 dying
> without leaving the official maintaining work to some
> volunteers? Any special reason?
Because nobody's really that interested in it. For what it's worth, I've
abandoned all pretence of continuing to support 2.4 in the MTD/JFFS2 CVS
tree. I won't object too hard if someone else wants to fix it up, _if_
that doesn't uglify the 2.6 code.
If 2.4 works already for you, by all means use it -- but if you're doing
any new development, or you _really_ want people to care when you find
bugs, it really ought to be 2.6.
> > I would not consider deploying anything on 2.6
> > today. IMHO it's not mature
> > enough to be used in production environment.
>
> I do agree with the view.I guess it is most embedded
> developers's opinion.
Out of interest, how many platforms are you using 2.6 on and how does
your experience with these platforms support your stated view?
--
dwmw2
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-26 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-07-23 14:57 2.4 versus 2.6 patches Robert P. J. Day
2004-07-24 15:20 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 2:50 ` Song Sam
2004-07-26 4:13 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 4:40 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-07-26 13:48 ` Song Sam
2004-07-26 14:27 ` David Woodhouse [this message]
2004-07-26 15:08 ` Mark Chambers
2004-07-26 15:53 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-07-26 16:30 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-07-26 23:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2004-07-26 23:49 ` Eugene Surovegin
2004-07-27 0:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2004-07-29 19:30 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-26 17:16 ` Wolfgang Denk
2004-08-09 15:03 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-07-27 3:13 ` Song Sam
2004-08-09 13:28 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-08-10 5:58 ` Song Sam
2004-08-10 11:54 ` Marcelo Tosatti
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-26 16:48 Demke, Torsten
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0407261021120.6190@localhost.localdomain \
--to=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=ebs@ebshome.net \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org \
--cc=rpjday@mindspring.com \
--cc=samlinuxppc@yahoo.com.cn \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).