Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261262AbUJYVZw (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:25:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262113AbUJYVV6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:21:58 -0400 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:58513 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261991AbUJYVRl (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:17:41 -0400 Message-ID: <417D6CD9.2090702@tmr.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 17:15:05 -0400 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: William Lee Irwin III CC: Willy Tarreau , espenfjo@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: My thoughts on the "new development model" References: <20041022225703.GJ19761@alpha.home.local><20041022225703.GJ19761@alpha.home.local> <20041023000956.GI17038@holomorphy.com> In-Reply-To: <20041023000956.GI17038@holomorphy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1853 Lines: 39 William Lee Irwin III wrote: > We aren't just stabilizing 2.6. We're moving it forward. Part of moving > forward is preventing backportmania depravity. Backporting is the root > of all evil. Damn! And I thought it was closed source software... Let me just put forward my single criterion for stable vs. not, and that is that if I am running a stable kernel and upgrade to a new version to gain a feature or security fix my existing programs don't break. That means to me that if Reiser4 goes in, Reiser3 doesn't exit. If something more please to theoretical cryptographers than cryptoloop comes out, cryptoloop doesn't go away. Etc, these are just examples. It doesn't bother me (and I believe most users of kernel.org releases) when a new features comes in, until it breaks something even though I don't use the new feature. It's when there is an incompatible change, like the rewrite of modules, that I think a development kernel is needed. I don't see the need for a development kernel, and it is desirable to be able to run kernel.org kernels. I would like to hope that other people agree that stable need not mean static, as long as changes don't deliberately break existing apps. I note that BSD has another serious fork and that people are actually moving to Linux after installing SP2 and finding it disfunctional with non-MS software. Nice to see people looking at Linux as the stable choice. I would like to hope that continues. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - 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/