Re: Development tree, PLEASE?

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:31:12 MST, Michael Loftis said:

> It's horrificly expensive to maintain large numbers of machines (even if 
> it's automated) as it is.  If you're doing embedded development too or 
> instead, it gets even harder when you need certain bugfixes or minor 
> changes, but end up having to redevelop things or start maintaining your 
> own kernel fork.

But you're perfectly happy to make the kernel developers do the equivalent thing
when they have to maintain 2 forks (a stable and devel).  Go back and look at
the status of the 2.5 tree - there were *large* chunks of time when 2.4 or 2.5
would get an important bugfix, but the other tree wouldn't get it for *weeks*
because of the hassle of cross-porting the patch.

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature