On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 01:57 -0700, Michael Loftis wrote:
> --On January 21, 2006 11:51:28 PM +0100 Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > And the more the development head proceeds from the "stable" one, the
> > more work is it to "backport" some hardware driver IMHO. Especially if
> > "stability" is a primary concern.
>
> Yes, I realise all of this. But everyone seems to get this damned
> territorial attitude that I want to see kernel development stopped, quite
Not at all.
> the opposite. All I want to see is a stable target for certain windows of
> time. So that way when bugs are fixed that are trivial there's a place to
You already have it - with the old and with the new development model.
*Your* problem is that the window of time with the new model is too
short IYHO.
> go without upgrading scads of userland stuff or worrying about lots of
> unrelated change.
Yes, we all know *your* problem and you want dozens of people to work a
lot *only* for you and for free.
Other solutions to *your* problem can be found in other mails in this
thread.
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
