Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932460AbVLMTtN (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932580AbVLMTtN (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:13 -0500 Received: from prgy-npn2.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.38]:36173 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932460AbVLMTtM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:49:12 -0500 Message-ID: <4395EE00.6020607@tmr.com> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 15:01:04 -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: Horst von Brand , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel References: <200512040106.jB415cqb023723@pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl> In-Reply-To: <200512040106.jB415cqb023723@pincoya.inf.utfsm.cl> 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: 1879 Lines: 60 Horst von Brand wrote: > Matthias Andree wrote: > >>On Sat, 03 Dec 2005, David Ranson wrote: >> >>>Adrian Bunk wrote: >>> >>> >>>>- support for ipfwadm and ipchains was removed during 2.6 > > >>>Surely this one had loads of notice though? I was using iptables with >>>2.4 kernels. > > > Sure had. They were scheduled for removal in march, 2005 a long time ago. > > >>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. > > > Or in 2.6.10, or 2.6.27, or whatever. > > >> 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. > > > Sorry, but the new development model is that there is no "uneven" series > anymore. Sure, it /might/ open for worldshattering changes, but nothing of > that sort is remotely in sight right now, so... > > >>>>- devfs support was removed during 2.6 >>> >>>Did this affect many 'real' users? > > >>This doesn't matter. A kernel that calls itself stable CAN NOT remove >>features unless they had been critically broken from the beginning. And >>this level of breakage is a moot point, so removal is not justified. > > > devfs was broken, and very little used. Perhaps there is a cause and effect relationship? If devfs worked I don't see the need for every distro to have it's own udev (or mdev or sdev or whatever the flavor is this month). -- -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/