From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
kir@swsoft.com, containers@lists.osdl.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
kir@openvz.org, Cedric Le Goater <clg@fr.ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
Sukadev Bhattiprolu <sukadev@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Devel] [PATCH] pidns: Place under CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL (take 2)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 22:40:12 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m14pgdtbkj.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071027040346.GQ30533@stusta.de> (Adrian Bunk's message of "Sat, 27 Oct 2007 06:03:46 +0200")
Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> writes:
> There isn't any hard semantics behind what is marked EXPERIMENTAL and
> what not. In it's current state, we could even consider removing the
> EXPERIMENTAL option and all dependencies on EXPERIMENTAL.
Well I do know at least some of the things that depend on experimental
are legitimate.
I wonder if the problem is that we don't police experimental well
enough.
> Currently CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL=n would cost a distribution a three digit
> number of device drivers plus several features like e.g. NFSv4.
I can see a distribution carefully cherry picking things, that the
have an intimate knowledge about out of experimental but it doesn't
sound right for taking things out of EXPERIMENTAL to be routine.
I know I'm a little slow about getting around to it but when ever I
have a feature that isn't EXPERIMENTAL anymore I remove the tag.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-27 4:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CBC546DD07068244AEC110EFEDA58B7235893F@excite.int.sw-soft.com>
2007-10-26 21:59 ` [Devel] [PATCH] pidns: Place under CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL (take 2) Eric W. Biederman
2007-10-27 0:24 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-10-27 1:31 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-10-27 2:04 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-10-27 2:18 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-27 3:46 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-10-27 4:03 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-10-27 4:40 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2007-10-27 5:17 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-10-27 4:40 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-27 7:41 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-10-29 18:05 ` Cedric Le Goater
2007-10-29 19:11 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-10-28 16:12 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2007-10-28 17:00 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-10-28 18:31 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-10-29 10:13 ` Cedric Le Goater
2007-10-29 18:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-10-26 22:34 ` Eric W. Biederman
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=m14pgdtbkj.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bunk@kernel.org \
--cc=clg@fr.ibm.com \
--cc=containers@lists.osdl.org \
--cc=kir@openvz.org \
--cc=kir@swsoft.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sukadev@us.ibm.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xemul@openvz.org \
/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