Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261853AbVADVDw (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:03:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261832AbVADVDi (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:03:38 -0500 Received: from inti.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.21.155]:35263 "EHLO inti.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261700AbVADVBp (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:01:45 -0500 Message-Id: <200501042058.j04KwFED002211@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> To: Felipe Alfaro Solana cc: Horst von Brand , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Adrian Bunk , Rik van Riel , William Lee Irwin III , Maciej Soltysiak , Andries Brouwer , William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 In-Reply-To: Message from Felipe Alfaro Solana of "Tue, 04 Jan 2005 15:27:04 BST." X-Mailer: MH-E 7.4.2; nmh 1.0.4; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 15) Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:58:15 -0300 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2163 Lines: 47 Felipe Alfaro Solana said: > On 4 Jan 2005, at 14:27, Horst von Brand wrote: > > Felipe Alfaro Solana said: [...] > >> I think new developments will force a 2.7 branch: when 2.6 feature set > >> stabilizes, people will keep more time testing a stable, relatively > >> static kernel base, finding bugs, instead of trying to keep up with > >> changes. > > And when 2.7 opens, very few developers will tend 2.6; and as 2.7 > > diverges from it, fewer and fewer fixes will find their way back. And > > so you finally get a rock-stable (== unchanging) 2.6, but hopelessly > > out of date and thus unfixable (if nothing else because there are no > > people around who remember how it worked). > I can see no easy solution for this... If Linus decides to fork off > 2.7, development efforts will go into 2.7 and fixes should get > backported to 2.6. If Linus decides to stay with 2.6, new development > will have to be "conservative" enough not to break things that were > working. Exactly. > I tend to prefer forking off 2.7: more agressive features can be > implemented and tested without bothering disrupting the stable 2.6 > branch. Have any particular features in mind? If you have some, you can fork off your own BK repository and play there (wait... that is how (currently) out-of-tree drivers are developed!). Or you could start an unofficial experimental fork. If none of the above, I guess you'd just have to wait until Our Fearless Leader decides it is time for 2.7. Just forcing a 2.7 "because that'll stabilize 2.6" is nonsense. Because then 2.6 won't stabilize any faster (probably slower). -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - 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/