linux-kernel - Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:32:23 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

Al Viro 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.
>
> Modules do not have any rights; it's software...

Ok, this should have been read as kernel/module dev/user right to leverage 
each others code under GPL and out of good-will to yield an increased 
harvest.

> > 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.

It's not my decision, it's the kernel maintainers decision to reject 
inclusion for one reason or another.  One reason could be a simple "we don't 
think this is useful".

Also, I think it's unrealistic to expect thousands of little-used modules to 
be included into mainline.

But, should we hinder that community to grow?


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/