Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763642AbXF0Wc7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:32:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762172AbXF0Wcw (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:32:52 -0400 Received: from [212.12.190.30] ([212.12.190.30]:33025 "EHLO raad.intranet" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761298AbXF0Wcu (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:32:50 -0400 From: Al Boldi To: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:32:04 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200706271653.58870.a1426z@gawab.com> <20070627155254.GO1094@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20070627155254.GO1094@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200706280132.04798.a1426z@gawab.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1613 Lines: 45 Adrian Bunk 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. > > "have a right" are strong words. > Who is granting them this right? Good-will GPL style. > > You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL > > module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community. > > > > Do you think this is fair? > > Why are these modules not submitted for inclusion into the kernel? There are many reasons for this, but basically they are too under-developed to be included, and need more time to mature out-of-tree. 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/