| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:22:31 -0400 From: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> Cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: maturity and status and attributes, oh my! On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:41:06AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > this whole attribute thing is not adding anything breathtaking new, > it's simply taking the example set by EXPERIMENTAL and generalizing > it and making it more convenient in the process. The problem I see with this whole maturity levels idea is that you've missed that 'EXPERIMENTAL' is largely a complete failure because everyone ends up enabling it due to needing something dependant on it. People just don't care about how mature an option is if they need a driver/feature. *No-one* is going to come across options and think "Oh, the driver for my network card isn't stable. Guess I'll not enable it". And the idea of hiding the options behind multiple levels of maturity options sounds completely batshit. Introducing multiple levels of EXPERIMENTAL is just introducing more symbols of zero value because everyone will end up enabling them just to get things done. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - 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