From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262072AbTLPT0d (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:26:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262074AbTLPT0d (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:26:33 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:1291 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262072AbTLPT0c (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 14:26:32 -0500 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Path: gatekeeper.tmr.com!davidsen From: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Newsgroups: mail.linux-kernel Subject: Re: Device-mapper submission for 2.4 Date: 16 Dec 2003 19:15:03 GMT Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Message-ID: References: <1258280000.1071024272@[10.10.2.4]> X-Trace: gatekeeper.tmr.com 1071602103 1014 192.168.12.62 (16 Dec 2003 19:15:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@tmr.com Originator: davidsen@gatekeeper.tmr.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In article , Paul Jakma wrote: | On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Martin J. Bligh wrote: | | > Some form of backward compatibility from 2.6 would seem a much more | > sensible thing to fight for. Foisting forward comaptibility on an | > older release seems like a bad road to go down. | | I dont really care, but some kind of (long-term, ie lifetime of | either 2.4 or 2.6) compatibility is needed. Where on earth did you get that? Is this some new policy Linus has put forth, or something you wish were real? It certainly wasn't the case for 2.2 => 2.4 conversion, where is it writ that LVM1 needs to get conversion help? -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.