[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070627171149.GZ21478@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:11:49 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0
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, for fsck sake...
> 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.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists