Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> I think this would be valuable .. the other thing that really needs to
> be present is a "common vendor" kernel where changes that are common
> to most distros are merged (eg O(1) scheduler, etc). Personally, I think
> that's what mainline should be doing ... but if other people disagree,
> then I, at least, would see value in a separate tree to do this.
akpm has suggested something like this in the past. I respectfully
disagree.
The 2.4 kernel will not benefit from constant churn of backporting core
kernel changes like a new scheduler. We need to let it settle, simply
get it stable, and concentrate on fixing key problems in 2.6. Otherwise
you will never have a stable 2.4 tree, and it will look suspiciously
more and more like 2.6 as time goes by. Constantly breaking working
configurations and changing core behaviors is _not_ the way to go for 2.4.
I see 2.4 O(1) scheduler and similar features as _pain_ brought on the
vendors by themselves (and their customers).
Surely it is better to concentrate developer time and mindshare on
making 2.6 sane?
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 23 2003 - 22:00:45 EST