Hi Michael,

>> I would like to hear what other kernel developers think about this. Or, if  
>> Eric can't find any other active kernel developer, anyone else interested  
>> in DOS-C or the FreeDOS project too.

> Will all due respect I think that Eric over complicates things often and
>   his opinion is a bit to fanatic. This discussion about possible
> licensing issues is pretty theoretic, reasons already given.

It is also practical, but Tom already said that Jim and I are
probably picky about licensing and patents etc than others.

> Also forcing non-private talk into non-public is very bad.

Did not happen recently afair, I followed the suggestions.

> I've read claims that it's Eric's fault that most of the remaining
> kernel developers [have quit] now but I haven't read yet enough of
> the old discussions to have an opinion on that.

I probably contributed to frustrating developers of the
unstable branch (Lucho / Arkady) because I disagreed on
their idea that "if code did not change recently then we
can say it is stable". Instead, my impression was and is
that the unstable branch of the kernel contains serious
modifications (also by Jeremy who is not available for
feedback, missing in action?)  which need review before
that branch can be called stable...

> Them left either because them lost interest or because of
> them where unhappy with the policy here.

Others simply stopped patching the kernel because it was
good enough for them and they moved on - I believe that
Bart and also maybe Tom and Jeremy may be in that group.

> You can read the changelog of DOS-C, over the years the changes
> stagnated and mostly small things. Not all new approaches must be
> perfectly professional, ongoing evolution is better then stagnation.

That kind of fits my vision on the stable branch: Small
changes, bugfixes, easy improvements, nothing which is
so revolutionary that it would need many reviewers or
testers, while still having gradual improvements... :-).


Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to