Re: Are we *really* in a feature freeze?

kwrohrer@ce.mediaone.net
Tue, 8 Sep 1998 13:58:02 -0500 (CDT)


And lo, Gregory Maxwell saith unto me:
> On Mon, 7 Sep 1998, Aaron Tiensivu wrote:
> > Hmm..
> > 2.1.120 seems to add QNX4 file system support.
> >
> > Are we breaking our own little rules? ;-)
>
> Sigh. QNX does not affect anything outside of itself. It's a single unit.
> We even add things like this to 2.0 kernels all the time. If QNXfs is
> broken it won't make debugging the rest of the kernel harder.

(1) Are you sure?
(2) So?

> Feature freeses should only free features that affect more then one little
> function.
[snip]
> Feature freeze means as few core changes as possible.

All features are equal, but some features are more equal than others?
Please. Linus's "freezes" have historically been rather lukewarm, and
may actually behave as you describe...but what's the point of calling
it a "feature freeze" instead of "core freeze" or something that fits
reality?

Keith

-- 
"The avalanche has already started; |Linux: http://www.linuxhq.com     |"Zooty,
it is too late for the pebbles to   |KDE:   http://www.kde.org         | zoot
vote." Kosh, "Believers", Babylon 5 |Keith: kwrohrer@enteract.com      | zoot!"
 www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html |http://www.enteract.com/~kwrohrer | --Rebo

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/faq.html