Re: Fw: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
> since Mark posted his views to the list, I figured I could safely post the > conversation I've been having with him in email which is universally considered rude, if not illegal. in any case, please don't respond to this thread, which is quite off-topic. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fw: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
since Mark posted his views to the list, I figured I could safely post the conversation I've been having with him in email which is universally considered rude, if not illegal. in any case, please don't respond to this thread, which is quite off-topic. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fw: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote: > since Mark posted his views to the list, I figured I could safely post the > conversation I've been having with him in email No excuse is good enough to justify posting private mail. -Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Fw: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
since Mark posted his views to the list, I figured I could safely post the conversation I've been having with him in email - Original Message - From: "Mark Hahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Nicholas Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:44 PM Subject: Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions > > > I can safely claim that I've used 2.3 and 2.4 a lot more than you. > > > while there have certainly been some bad kernels, many of them > > > have been far more stable than any 2.2. > > > > Alan Cox himself has said he doesn't entirely trust 2.4, you're going to > > dispute him? > > absolutely. Alan Cox has the most credability in my view of any person in the linux community (this is just my view, but I think it's pretty safe to say that Alan is a very respected member of the linux community.) If he doesn't entirely trust a kernel, I don't think I'd be very willing to either... this combined with my experiences with 2.3 and 2.4 kernels leads me to mistrust 2.4 untill it's more refined > > > > > the simple fact is, DEVELOPMENT HAS TO OCCUR TO KEEP UP WITH CURRENT > > > > HARDWARE AND NEEDS! > > > > > > I'm curious why you think 2.4 was developed at all. > > > > 2.4 contained MASSIVE changes to MANY aspects of the kernel, that's why it's > > 2.4 and not 2.2.19 > > 2.2.x's that included new drivers were neccisary while 2.4 was in > > I guess you don't read 2.2 patches. it has contained MASSIVE changes > to MANY aspects of the kernel. about the only thing that has been > off-limits is the SMP locking strategy (and that, by the way, is what > Alan says his policy has been.) > > > take ATA/66 support, this needed to be avalible in a stable kernel, but it > > wasn't in original 2.2 kernels, but was added in 2.2.12 (or 14, can't recall > > precisely at the present time if it was .12 or .14) > > so 2.2 transmorgrified from "stable" to "development for conservatives" > because 2.4 took so long. according to kernel.org, there were *seven* 2.2 kernels not including the original 2.2.0 prior to the day 2.3.0 was posted there was also an 8th 2.2 kernel posted just hours before 2.3.0 was posted on may 11th of 1999 this is not an abnormal pattern for linux the linux kernel is simply too complex and still isn't to a point where you can wait very long between kernel changes (i.e. as long as 2.2 to 2.4 took... or how long it would have taken even if 2.2 development had completely *HALTED* and *everyone* concentraited *Entirely* on 2.4 again, take ATA/66, it should be considered an essential component of the kernel, it NEEDED to be there, if they'd waited for 2.4 and all the changes it had incorporated, there would have been some major problems > > > if you really feel this way, why not post it to the kernel list? then maybe > > did. > > > when enough people explain it, you'll understand why development continues > > on stable kernels after they've been released > > nonsense. > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Fw: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
since Mark posted his views to the list, I figured I could safely post the conversation I've been having with him in email - Original Message - From: "Mark Hahn" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Nicholas Knight" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:44 PM Subject: Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions I can safely claim that I've used 2.3 and 2.4 a lot more than you. while there have certainly been some bad kernels, many of them have been far more stable than any 2.2. Alan Cox himself has said he doesn't entirely trust 2.4, you're going to dispute him? absolutely. Alan Cox has the most credability in my view of any person in the linux community (this is just my view, but I think it's pretty safe to say that Alan is a very respected member of the linux community.) If he doesn't entirely trust a kernel, I don't think I'd be very willing to either... this combined with my experiences with 2.3 and 2.4 kernels leads me to mistrust 2.4 untill it's more refined the simple fact is, DEVELOPMENT HAS TO OCCUR TO KEEP UP WITH CURRENT HARDWARE AND NEEDS! I'm curious why you think 2.4 was developed at all. 2.4 contained MASSIVE changes to MANY aspects of the kernel, that's why it's 2.4 and not 2.2.19 2.2.x's that included new drivers were neccisary while 2.4 was in I guess you don't read 2.2 patches. it has contained MASSIVE changes to MANY aspects of the kernel. about the only thing that has been off-limits is the SMP locking strategy (and that, by the way, is what Alan says his policy has been.) snip take ATA/66 support, this needed to be avalible in a stable kernel, but it wasn't in original 2.2 kernels, but was added in 2.2.12 (or 14, can't recall precisely at the present time if it was .12 or .14) so 2.2 transmorgrified from "stable" to "development for conservatives" because 2.4 took so long. according to kernel.org, there were *seven* 2.2 kernels not including the original 2.2.0 prior to the day 2.3.0 was posted there was also an 8th 2.2 kernel posted just hours before 2.3.0 was posted on may 11th of 1999 this is not an abnormal pattern for linux the linux kernel is simply too complex and still isn't to a point where you can wait very long between kernel changes (i.e. as long as 2.2 to 2.4 took... or how long it would have taken even if 2.2 development had completely *HALTED* and *everyone* concentraited *Entirely* on 2.4 again, take ATA/66, it should be considered an essential component of the kernel, it NEEDED to be there, if they'd waited for 2.4 and all the changes it had incorporated, there would have been some major problems if you really feel this way, why not post it to the kernel list? then maybe did. when enough people explain it, you'll understand why development continues on stable kernels after they've been released nonsense. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fw: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote: since Mark posted his views to the list, I figured I could safely post the conversation I've been having with him in email No excuse is good enough to justify posting private mail. -Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
