Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:06:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:06:41 -0400 Received: from adsl-216-62-200-99.dsl.austtx.swbell.net ([216.62.200.99]:60074 "HELO digitalroadkill.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 00:06:41 -0400 Subject: Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............ From: Austin Gonyou To: David Weinehall Cc: c0330 , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020713234920.GP29001@khan.acc.umu.se> References: <1026577702.24686.3.camel@UberGeek> <20020713234920.GP29001@khan.acc.umu.se> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.1.0.99 (Preview Release) Date: 14 Jul 2002 23:07:51 -0500 Message-Id: <1026706071.10084.6.camel@UberGeek> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3269 Lines: 63 On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 18:49, David Weinehall wrote: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 11:28:22AM -0500, Austin Gonyou wrote: > > I'd imagine that it would, JMHO, but it makes little sense, at least for > > prime-time level maintenance of a kernel who's architecture, while valid > > for use in many areas, is still far limited, even in light of 2.4. > > The maintenance of the 2.0-tree will continue. I see no point in > ceasing to maintain it just because the release of 2.6. They simply do > not target the same audience. Agreed. Which is why, for the most part I noted that prime-time level maintenance will not be the norm. Though *someone* I'm sure *will* maintain it, even if they're the last person using it on the planet. >From what I understand, a lot of people target 2.0 for embedded anyway. While 2.2 and 2.4 are usually after thoughts in that arena. *not all, but most it seems* > > The advancements which 2.6 will bring, over 2.4, will be extraordinarily > > different, in terms of overall architecture it seems. Even if it's only > > a 20% architecture difference from 2.4, think of how much further from > > 2.0 that is. > > Yes, and that is why 2.0 is still maintained; for some users, the step > between 2.0 and a later release is too large when it comes to how many > userland programs that need to be upgraded/retested/rewritten. That's true, but in my mind, except for embedded, these same users could stand to probably upgrade their hardware as well, not just for speed improvements, but capacity, and capability. This would most likely force them into a new kernel to *properly* support newer hardware, or take advantage of advancements that 2.0 can't offer. > Really, there is little reason to worry; my contribution to the > development of 2.5 (and a forthcoming 2.6/2.7/2.8/...) would probably > not be much larger were I to drop maintenance of the 2.0-tree. Possibly, > Marcello and Linus would receive a few more odd fixes for typos and > the Config-files, and maybe some MCA-related fixes, but as things stand > right now, the fact that I only have a dialup-connection stands between > me and serious development (anyone care to sponsor a > faster connection or hire me?) I do agree with that as well. I don't see any reason to worry. It's open-source, and the codebase will always be available, in *someone's* repository at least. > > Regards: David Weinehall > _ _ > // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ > // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // > \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ - > 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/ -- Austin Gonyou - 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/