Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751096AbWATRQH (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:16:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751107AbWATRQH (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:16:07 -0500 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp02.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.162]:26467 "EHLO BAYC1-PASMTP02.bayc1.hotmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751096AbWATRQG (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:16:06 -0500 Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: [69.156.6.171] X-Originating-Email: [seanlkml@sympatico.ca] Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:11:16 -0500 From: sean To: Michael Loftis Cc: James@superbug.co.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Development tree, PLEASE? Message-Id: <20060120121116.62a8f0a6.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> In-Reply-To: <6769FDC09295B7E6078A5089@d216-220-25-20.dynip.modwest.com> References: <43D10FF8.8090805@superbug.co.uk> <6769FDC09295B7E6078A5089@d216-220-25-20.dynip.modwest.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.0.4 (GTK+ 2.8.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2006 17:16:05.0782 (UTC) FILETIME=[32740B60:01C61DE5] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1643 Lines: 31 On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:36:35 -0700 Michael Loftis wrote: > Yes I realise this change isn't out of the blue or anything, but it's in a > 'stable' kernel. Why bother calling 2.6 stable? We may as well have > stayed at 2.5 if this sort of thing is going to continue to be pulled. > Most of your message seems to boil down to complaining that devfs has been removed. Unfortunately your frustration is pointed in the wrong direction; you should be asking yourself why you ignored all those warnings about devfs removal for so long. If you really need it, just use the 2.4 kernel; it's very stable. If you want to complain about the current tree being called "stable", then just don't call it stable. Call it the development tree because in the end that's what it is. No need to get hung up on a name; it is what it is. Anyone, is free to fork a real stable tree just like some distributions do. But such "stable" trees just aren't going to be maintained by the same people who develop the mainline; they have enough to do already. If you can think of an idea to solve your problem without demanding that other people (ie. the mainline developers) do extra work, then speak up. But just demanding that the developers patch a stable tree while working on the development branch as well, has other _real_ costs that precipitated the shift to the current model. Sean - 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/