Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750939AbWATROb (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:14:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751096AbWATROa (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:14:30 -0500 Received: from free.wgops.com ([69.51.116.66]:12558 "EHLO shell.wgops.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750939AbWATROa (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:14:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:14:15 -0700 From: Michael Loftis To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Marc Koschewski , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Development tree, PLEASE? Message-ID: <5F952B75937998C1721ACBA8@d216-220-25-20.dynip.modwest.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20060120155919.GA5873@stiffy.osknowledge.org> 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: 2617 Lines: 52 --On January 20, 2006 5:41:13 PM +0100 Jan Engelhardt wrote: > >> Lots of things still out there depend on devfs. So now if I want to >> develop my kmod on recent kernels I have to be in the business of >> maintaining a lot more userland stuff, like mkinitrd, installers, etc. >> that have come to rely on devfs. > > Just like the OSS-ALSA/e100 debate: If there IS something that you > do not like [something that requires devfs], why has NO ONE objected? > (Quoting Greg: "and I have not heard a single peep out of anyone about > the email titled "Subject: devfs going away, last chance to complain"") > Not to forget there is ndevfs if you really need it. Unfortunately I wasn't pushing on bleeding edge kernels when that thread happened and I apologize for not speaking up then, but this is much larger than just devfs. This is the need for development to get off the stable kernel, and onto a development branch where it belongs so we can quit breaking things for the stable kernel. Unless the intent is to just not have a stable kernel anymore. If it is, then fine, lets see word from the forces that be along those lines. I'm just calling things as they are, right now, 2.6 is development, and unstable. Yes it runs without crashing and is stable in that sense, but so are a goodly lot/most of the 2.5 series (heck I ran a decent chunk of that in production). The problem here is I'm spending a lot of my time lately fixing things that shouldn't need fixing. Things that are/were developed against what was supposed to be a stable major version and has been turned into a development version. I realise that there are/have been policy changes, and I can see the need and reason behind those, and I agree with them on the front, more development is good. But it should be done in a development branch, because otherwise it makes it damn near impossible to maintain when the world is slowly changing under you. It's easier for an embedded system especially to pick a target, and then stay with it. Later when a new major version comes out the time can then be invested ONCE to redevelop what needs redeveloping, which is easier to do (yes I'm speaking from a business standpoint, sorry, but someone has to) and to sell to management than nickel-and-dime to death of trying to follow a development tree. - 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/