Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Alan Cox
2005-03-04T18:46:14Z

On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 18:18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Alan, I think your problem is that you really think that the tree _I_ want
> is what _you_ want.

No I think you just misunderstood the point I was trying to make. They
are different trees and the difference is what stops you just doing the
layering Andrew seemed to think would work.

> I look at this from a _layering_ standpoint. Not from a "stable tree"
> standpoint at all.

>From a layering perspective the .x.y.z kernel is a dead end fork each
2.x.y and that means it can and should make use of the ugly short term
fixes that solve problems.

> And that means that such a kernel would not get all patches that you'd
> want. That's fine. That was never the aim of it. The _only_ point of this
> kernel would be to have a baseline that nobody can disagree with.

Thats fine. It's a useful check, although it means we now have another
layer of obfuscation.

> In other words, it's not a "let's fix all serious bugs we can fix", but a
> "this is the least common denominator that is basically acceptable to
> everybody, regardless of what their objectives are".

Acceptable to whom ? Users want all the security issues fixed.

> So if you want to fix a security issue, and the fix is too big or invasive
> or ugly for the "least common denominator" thing, then it simply does not
> _go_ into that kernel. At that point, it goes into an -ac kernel, or into
> my kernel, or into a vendor kernel. See?

If you put the corresponding "ugghh" fix into the 2.6.x.y sure. Thats
what I'm trying to say.

> So think of it as a piece in the puzzle, not the whole picture.

I think a lot of the folks who are using the 2.6 kernels and not using
vendor kernels have enough puzzles already 8)

Alan