} Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 16:49:00 -0600
} From: Cort Dougan <cort@fsmlabs.com>
}
} If anyone else wants access to the 2.5 tree we have as a place to
} keep experimental changes I'm happy to open it up to the outside.
}
} Well, let's first step back for a second and really think about
} what is being said here:
}
} 1) 2.4.x is taking too long
}
} 2) We have this backlog of new PPC features people are writing,
} I can't put them into the 2.4.x tree, but I don't want to lose
} them either.
}
} 3) So I've made a 2.5.x tree so the experimental stuff can occur
} somewhere.
My PPC guys want to change things. I can't stop them, but I can prevent
them from screwing with 2.4 which needs to stay stable. If they don't wan
to fix bugs in 2.4 then I can't force them to. They don't work for me, and
I don't work for anyone who cares about PPC. So I'm not going to put a
great deal of effort into forcing them to them to do something they don't
want to. I've effectively kept them from making 2.4 unstable on PPC.
That's a good thing, I think.
I've also given them a place to do their experimentation before it becomes
safe. Once it does, I can move it into 2.4 or wait for 2.5 if the changes
don't become stable.
} The _whole reason_ 2.5.x isn't started is so that people concentrate
} on stabilizing 2.4.x instead of working on new stuff. Why not just
} tell these people "why are you working on experimental stuff, put
} together PPC stress test and kernel regression suites if you are
} bored, because we know 2.4.x isn't read for prime time"
Do you really think that's forcing people to concentrate of fixing bugs?
Tell me if you disagree, I'd like to understand how you see that. I see
that 2.4 is getting all kinds of changes merged in that should be going on
with 2.5. The recent VM changes have left us with deadlocks that we didn't
have before. Shouldn't that have gone into 2.5 not 2.4?
I agree with the idea of getting people to concentrate on stabilizing 2.4.
Some people want to work on other things, though. I'd like to give them a
place to make their experimental changes outside of a stable tree. There's
no place to do that. Instead, we get experimental changes in 2.4 and a
buggy 2.4.
} You cannot complain about 2.4.x not being timely if you are doing
} things which directly encourage folks to not work on 2.4.x at all.
} Right?
What I've done has kept PPC-specific parts of 2.4 from becoming a mess of
bugs. I've also allowed people to do their experimentation somewhere else,
that won't break 2.4. Do you think that's wrong? Do you think I should
have done it differently? If so, tell me how. I'm open to changing the
way things work.
If you'd suggest I just "make" people fix 2.4 then I suggest you do it,
then tell me how.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:22 EST