[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200706280132.04798.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 01:32:04 +0300
From: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0
Adrian Bunk 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.
>
> "have a right" are strong words.
> Who is granting them this right?
Good-will GPL style.
> > You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL
> > module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community.
> >
> > Do you think this is fair?
>
> Why are these modules not submitted for inclusion into the kernel?
There are many reasons for this, but basically they are too under-developed
to be included, and need more time to mature out-of-tree.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists