Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs)

Adrian Bunk
2004-07-29T12:28:01Z

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 02:55:39AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
> >
> > Changes that remove functionally like Greg's patch are hopefully
> > still 2.7 stuff - 2.6 is a stable kernel series and smooth upgrades
> > inside a stable kernel series are a must for many users.
>
> I don't necessarily agree that such changes in the userspace interface
> should be tied to the kernel version number, really. That's a three or
> four year warning period, which is unreasonably long. Six to twelve months
> should be long enough for udev-based replacements to stabilise and
> propagate out into distributions.
>
> That being said, mid-2005 would be an appropriate time to remove devfs. If
> that schedule pushes things along faster than they would otherwise have
> progressed, well, good.
>...

I'm currently wondering whether part of our discussion might be about a
non-issue:

It's true that there's not a pressing need for opening 2.7 today.

But do you assume that this will still be true one year from now?

If 2.7 will open during the next 12 months, "mid-2005" would still be
after 2.7 opened, and such non-urgent cleanups could then go into 2.7 .

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed