Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750711AbWATPSF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:18:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750714AbWATPSF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:18:05 -0500 Received: from free.wgops.com ([69.51.116.66]:32269 "EHLO shell.wgops.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750711AbWATPSE (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:18:04 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:17:40 -0700 From: Michael Loftis To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Development tree, PLEASE? Message-ID: X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.4 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact support@wgops.com X-MailScanner: WGOPS clean X-MailScanner-From: mloftis@wgops.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1728 Lines: 35 OK, I don't know abotu others, but I'm starting to get sick of this unstable stable kernel. Either change the statements allover that were made that even-numbered kernels were going to be stable or open 2.7. Removing devfs has profound effects on userland. It's one thing to screw with all of the embedded developers, nearly all kernel module developers, etc, by changing internal APIs but this is completely out of hand. Normally I wouldn't care, and I'd just stay away from 'stable' until someone finally figured out that a dev tree really is needed, but I can't stay quiet anymore. 2.6.x is anything but stable right now. It might be stable in the sense that most any development kernel is stable in that it runs without crashing, but it's not at all stable in the sense that everything is changing as if it were an odd numbered dev tree. Yes, I'm venting some frustrations here, but I can't be the only one. I know now I'm going to be called a troll or a naysayer but whatever. The fact is it needs saying. I shouldn't have to do major changes to accomodate sysfs in a *STABLE* kernel when going between point revs. This is just not how it's been done in the past. I can sympathize with the need to push code out to users faster, and to simplify maintenance as LK is a huge project, but at the expense of how many developers? -- "Genius might be described as a supreme capacity for getting its possessors into trouble of all kinds." -- Samuel Butler - 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/