From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753204AbcDFUFf (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:05:35 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:43217 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752624AbcDFUFe (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Apr 2016 16:05:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:05:32 -0700 From: Greg KH To: "Artem S. Tashkinov" Cc: linux-kernel Subject: Re: The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development Message-ID: <20160406200532.GA12430@kroah.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 05:43:47PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > One very big justification of this proposal is that core Linux development > (I'm talking about various subsystems like mm/ ipc/ and interfaces under > block/ fs/ security/ sound/ etc. ) has slowed down significantly over the > past years so radical changes which warrant new kernel API/ABI are less > likely to be introduced. That's not true at all, the change is constant, and increasing, just look at the tree for proof of that. > Please, share your opinion. Please read Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt for my opinion, and that of the current developers. If you don't agree with this, that's fine, you are welcome to fork the kernel at any specific point and keep that api stable, just like many companies do and make money from it (SuSE, Red Hat, etc.) best of luck with your kernel project, greg k-h