linux-kernel - Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?

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:	Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:09:27 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	ciol <ciol13@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?

ciol <ciol13@...il.com> writes:

> Hi, I'd like to ask you a few questions:
>
> * Do you like the way linux distributions integrate the kernel?
>
> * Wouldn't you prefer they ship with the stable and still maintained 2.6.16.X,
> while providing optionally the latest kernel for those who want or just have a
> new hardware?
>
> * Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the "I don't trust in
> upstream" development model are broken? (And why)

I think a megafreeze development model is sane.  Finding a collection
of software versions that are all known to work together is very
interesting, and useful.  Making it so you can deliver something that
just works to end users is always interesting.

The only thing you miss out on are new features like the latest hardware
support.

I think forking packages just so you can claim they are frozen is a
dubious practice.  Especially if features are added in those forks.
(Yes new hardware support is a feature).

Eric
-
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/