Re: The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development

2016-04-07 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:01:03PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > On 2016-04-07 01:05, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 05:43:47PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > > > One very big justification of this proposal is that core Linux > > > development > > > (I'm talking about various

Re: The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development

2016-04-07 Thread Greg KH
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:01:03PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > On 2016-04-07 01:05, Greg KH wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 05:43:47PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > > > One very big justification of this proposal is that core Linux > > > development > > > (I'm talking about various

Re: The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development

2016-04-07 Thread Artem S. Tashkinov
On 2016-04-07 01:05, Greg KH wrote: On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 05:43:47PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: One very big justification of this proposal is that core Linux development (I'm talking about various subsystems like mm/ ipc/ and interfaces under block/ fs/ security/ sound/ etc. ) has

Re: The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development

2016-04-07 Thread Artem S. Tashkinov
On 2016-04-07 01:05, Greg KH wrote: On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 05:43:47PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: One very big justification of this proposal is that core Linux development (I'm talking about various subsystems like mm/ ipc/ and interfaces under block/ fs/ security/ sound/ etc. ) has

Re: The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development

2016-04-06 Thread Greg KH
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 05:43:47PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > One very big justification of this proposal is that core Linux development > (I'm talking about various subsystems like mm/ ipc/ and interfaces under > block/ fs/ security/ sound/ etc. ) has slowed down significantly over the >

Re: The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development

2016-04-06 Thread Greg KH
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 05:43:47PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > One very big justification of this proposal is that core Linux development > (I'm talking about various subsystems like mm/ ipc/ and interfaces under > block/ fs/ security/ sound/ etc. ) has slowed down significantly over the >

Re: The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development

2016-04-04 Thread Al Viro
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 05:43:47PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > 1) Yeah, I know, you all hate that, but stable APIs and ABIs must be > introduced and supported for, let's say, at least three to five > years. "Must"? Whatever for? > One very big justification of this proposal is that core

Re: The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development

2016-04-04 Thread Al Viro
On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 05:43:47PM +0500, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > 1) Yeah, I know, you all hate that, but stable APIs and ABIs must be > introduced and supported for, let's say, at least three to five > years. "Must"? Whatever for? > One very big justification of this proposal is that core

The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development

2016-04-02 Thread Artem S. Tashkinov
Hello all, It's not a secret that there are two basic ways of running a Linux distribution on your hardware. Either you use a stable distro which has quite an outdated kernel release which might not support your hardware or you run the most recent stable version but you lose stability and you

The most insane proposal in regard to the Linux kernel development

2016-04-02 Thread Artem S. Tashkinov
Hello all, It's not a secret that there are two basic ways of running a Linux distribution on your hardware. Either you use a stable distro which has quite an outdated kernel release which might not support your hardware or you run the most recent stable version but you lose stability and you