Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763624AbXF0Wb4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:31:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759790AbXF0Wbt (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:31:49 -0400 Received: from [212.12.190.30] ([212.12.190.30]:33021 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759064AbXF0Wbs (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:31:48 -0400 From: Al Boldi To: Al Viro Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:32:23 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200706271653.58870.a1426z@gawab.com> <20070627171149.GZ21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20070627171149.GZ21478@ftp.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200706280132.23739.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1998 Lines: 55 Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > > Al Viro wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote: > > > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of > > > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable > > > > kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable > > > > kernel (from the same series), while development kernels > > > > need time to stabilise with the new whizz-bang-pfouit stuff > > > > that you all so nicely add. > > > > > > "Drop-in" in which sense? That out-of-tree modules keep working? > > > Not really... > > > > Al, be reasonable. There are many out-of-tree GPL modules that won't be > > accepted into mainline, never mind those that shouldn't be accepted. > > But these modules do have a right to not be obsoleted by constant API > > changes. > > Modules do not have any rights; it's software... Ok, this should have been read as kernel/module dev/user right to leverage each others code under GPL and out of good-will to yield an increased harvest. > > You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL > > module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community. > > The same thing happens with any yet-to-be-merged code. > > > Do you think this is fair? > > Yes, it is fair. Decision to maintain your code out of tree indefinitely > is your decision. It's not my decision, it's the kernel maintainers decision to reject inclusion for one reason or another. One reason could be a simple "we don't think this is useful". Also, I think it's unrealistic to expect thousands of little-used modules to be included into mainline. But, should we hinder that community to grow? Thanks! -- Al - 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/