Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932612AbVLFO7U (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:59:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932611AbVLFO7T (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:59:19 -0500 Received: from prgy-npn2.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.38]:21139 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751681AbVLFO7S (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:59:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4395A74C.1020706@tmr.com> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 09:59:24 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050729 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Ranson CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel References: <20051203135608.GJ31395@stusta.de> <1133620598.22170.14.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20051203152339.GK31395@stusta.de> <20051203162755.GA31405@merlin.emma.line.org> <4391CEC7.30905@unsolicited.net> <1133630012.6724.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4391D335.7040008@unsolicited.net> <20051203175355.GL31395@stusta.de> <4391E52D.6020702@unsolicited.net> <20051203222731.GC25722@merlin.emma.line.org> <43921DEC.9080406@unsolicited.net> In-Reply-To: <43921DEC.9080406@unsolicited.net> 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: 1544 Lines: 41 David Ranson wrote: > Matthias Andree wrote: > > >>So was I. And now what? ipfwadm and ipchains should have been removed > >>from 2.6.0 if 2.6.0 was not to support these. That opportunity was > >>missed, the removal wasn't made up for in 2.6.1, so the stuff has to >>stick until 2.8.0. >> >> > > I'm not aware of that policy... maybe I overlooked something? Until 2.6, a stable series did not remove existing features, so someone building an rpm or deb package could release it for "2.4.12 or later" and expect it to work. As a for instance there are people who went to 2.6 and kept their old firwall rules written in ipchains, because they still worked. Now if ipchains are deleted a full rewrite of firewall rules is needed, and that just shouldn't be don't in haste. My personal opinion is that ipfwadm and ipchains should have followed some other features into the night before 2.6.0 ever came out. No one would have gotten a nasty surprise later. I also think that reiser4 is 2.7 material, if there were a 2.7. I didn't see all that much wrong with the old odd/even model to tell the truth, it wasn't perfect but you knew what you got. -- -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/