Re: A users thoughts on the new dev. model

From: Adrian Bunk (bunk_at_fs.tum.de)
Date: 07/23/04

  • Next message: Siddha, Suresh B: "Re: [PATCH] consolidate sched domains" 
    Date:	Fri, 23 Jul 2004 23:40:56 +0200
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>

    On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 01:58:27PM +0000, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
    > Followup to: <cdpee5$otu$1@gatekeeper.tmr.com>
    > By author: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
    > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
    > >
    > > I confess I feel that this new model is a return to the bad old days
    > > when the stable tree wasn't. Sounds as if Andrew is bored with the idea
    > > of letting 2.7 be the development tree and just being the gatekeeper of
    > > STABLE new features for 2.6. Perhaps 2.7 should be opened and Andrew
    > > will have a place to play, and features can drift to 2.6 more slowly.
    > >
    >
    > I think the discussion we had at the kernel summit has been somewhat
    > misrepresented by LWN et al. What we discussed was really more of a
    > "soft fork", with the -mm tree serving the purpose of 2.7, rather than
    > a hard fork with a separate maintainer and putting ourselves in
    > back/forward-porting hell all over again.
    >
    > Note that Andrew's -mm tree *specificially* has infrastructure to keep
    > changes apart and thus backporting to 2.6 mainstream of patches which
    > have proven themselves becomes trivial.
    >...

    One problem from a user's point of view is that removal of obsolete code
    that works sufficiently for some users.

    Andrew said explicitely in a mail to linux-kernel that he'd consider
    removing devfs "mid-2005" - and it didn't sound as if this would only be
    a -mm "feature".

    Even if 2.7 is started this doesn't has to imply that it has to be
    flooded with big changes - a short 2.7 with relativley few invasive
    changes might also be an option.

    > -hpa

    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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
  • Next message: Siddha, Suresh B: "Re: [PATCH] consolidate sched domains"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering
      ... > This is an idea that has been brewing for some time: Andrew has mentioned ... > Namely that we could adopt the even/odd numbering scheme that we used to ... > changes in the stable tree too, just to keep up with a changing landscape. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: New dev model (was [PATCH] delete devfs)
      ... the old stable tree will be supported for several years even ... after the new stable tree opens (2.0 and 2.2 seem to be quite dead today ... There had been need of rain for many days. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [patch] Re: 2.6.8-rc2-mm1: NTFS compile error with gcc 2.95
      ... If so I will apply it to my tree and Andrew will get it when ... I verified the compilation with gcc 2.95 before sending this ... There had been need of rain for many days. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [2.6 patch] drivers/pnp/: possible cleanups
      ... modular code will use any of them, ... Modular ISAPnP might be interesting in some cases, ... There had been need of rain for many days. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)
    • Re: [2.6 patch] let W1 select NET
      ... > selecting the required dependencies. ... There had been need of rain for many days. ... send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in ...
      (Linux-Kernel)