On Sun, 2003-03-23 at 23:21, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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?
I'm no hardcore kernel hacker, but I fully agree with you.
2.4 is pretty stable... Introducing new code (VM, IDE, etc) is just a
bit risky, more even when current 2.4 is 2.4.21 (I would say mature
enough).
________________________________________________________________________
Felipe Alfaro Solana
Linux Registered User #287198
http://counter.li.org
-
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