Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262474AbUJ0O6w (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:58:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262475AbUJ0O6v (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:58:51 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:59838 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262474AbUJ0O6d (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:58:33 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:57:45 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: John Richard Moser Cc: William Lee Irwin III , Willy Tarreau , Rik van Riel , "Marcos D. Marado Torres" , Ed Tomlinson , Massimo Cetra , "'Chuck Ebbert'" <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, "'Bill Davidsen'" , "'linux-kernel'" Subject: Re: My thoughts on the "new development model" Message-ID: <20041027145743.GA16666@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , John Richard Moser , William Lee Irwin III , Willy Tarreau , Rik van Riel , "Marcos D. Marado Torres" , Ed Tomlinson , Massimo Cetra , 'Chuck Ebbert' <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, 'Bill Davidsen' , 'linux-kernel' References: <20041027051342.GK19761@alpha.home.local> <20041027052321.GT15367@holomorphy.com> <417FA711.90700@comcast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <417FA711.90700@comcast.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1586 Lines: 36 On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:48:01AM -0400, John Richard Moser wrote: > > I for one don't give a damn. Bugs and how fast this development model > fix them aren't a concern to me; although I'd never slow down the bug > fixing process. My concern is getting a real stable tree for various > maintainers to base on, so that various patches for drivers, security > enhancements, and other things aren't scattered across versions and > impossible to patch together even when they're noninvasive to eachother. > > Have you stopped to consider that the features that are critical to me > are also holding me back from upgrading to the newer kernels? > Ironically, these are security features, and the newer kernels have > newer security fixes aside from new schedulers and other toys I could > really enjoy having around. So instead of kvetching, why don't you (a) Create your own stable series by snapshotting some 2.6.x tree every six months, and then maintain a set of bug-fix only patches against that 2.6.x tree? Then convince the security people to port to that particular 2.6.x-jrm tree? (b) Convince the security folks to try to get their patches into the mm- tree, for eventual inclusion into 2.6. (c) Some combination of the two. Either would probably be more likely to fulfill your needs than just whining about it. - Ted - 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/