On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:31:12 MST, Michael Loftis said: > It's horrificly expensive to maintain large numbers of machines (even if > it's automated) as it is. If you're doing embedded development too or > instead, it gets even harder when you need certain bugfixes or minor > changes, but end up having to redevelop things or start maintaining your > own kernel fork. But you're perfectly happy to make the kernel developers do the equivalent thing when they have to maintain 2 forks (a stable and devel). Go back and look at the status of the 2.5 tree - there were *large* chunks of time when 2.4 or 2.5 would get an important bugfix, but the other tree wouldn't get it for *weeks* because of the hassle of cross-porting the patch.
Attachment:
pgpEIZsO8x5oq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
- From: Michael Loftis <[email protected]>
- Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
- From: Michael Loftis <[email protected]>
- Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
- References:
- Development tree, PLEASE?
- From: Michael Loftis <[email protected]>
- Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
- From: James Courtier-Dutton <[email protected]>
- Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
- From: Michael Loftis <[email protected]>
- Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
- From: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
- Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
- From: Michael Loftis <[email protected]>
- Development tree, PLEASE?
- Prev by Date: Re: BUG in check_monotonic_clock()
- Next by Date: [GIT PATCH] PCI patches for 2.6.16-rc1
- Previous by thread: Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
- Next by thread: Re: Development tree, PLEASE?
- Index(es):