Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751498AbWB0Ttl (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:49:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751510AbWB0Ttl (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:49:41 -0500 Received: from dsl093-040-174.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.40.174]:3525 "EHLO aria.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751498AbWB0Ttl (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:49:41 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:49:41 -0800 From: Greg KH To: Diego Calleja Cc: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, davej@redhat.com, perex@suse.cz, kay.sievers@vrfy.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Add kernel<->userspace ABI stability documentation Message-ID: <20060227194941.GD9991@suse.de> References: <20060227190150.GA9121@kroah.com> <20060227203520.0df1d548.diegocg@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060227203520.0df1d548.diegocg@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1764 Lines: 38 On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:35:20PM +0100, Diego Calleja wrote: > El Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:01:50 -0800, > Greg KH escribi?: > > > > I've sketched out a directory structure that starts in > > Documentation/ABI/ and has five different states, "stable", "testing", > > "unstable", "obsolete", and "private". The README file describes these > > With the current development model, does it have sense to have a "testing" > stage? Once the interfaces are released in the main kernel, people is going > to use them just like they were stable... The whole point of this document is to state that they should be wary of doing so, and be aware that things can change. And also that they need to work _with_ the kernel developers if they are relying on things that are "unstable" or in "testing" to be notified of future changes and just to help make things move to "stable" quicker and more smoothly. Also, if you look at other operating systems, they have this same kind of "levels" of stability for their interfaces, so this is nothing new. For us to say that our "first cut" implementation of some of these interfaces should instantly be marked "stable" is just folley if we think that we know-all about how stuff will work once it's being used by lots of different people. I'm sure as hell not that smart to get everything right the very first time, even if you might be :) An explicit example of this is the evolution that sys_futex went through, even after it was made a syscall... thanks, greg k-h - 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/