On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Jeremy Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hrm. evo ate part of my reply so trying to recreate it.. > > On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 13:18 -0400, Bryan J Smith wrote: >> Or would everyone agree it's probably not a good idea to try to work >> something for RHEL 5? My idea was to replace mayflower with something >> for RHEL 5 now, and then work on adding those features to mkinitrd for >> possibly RHEL 6 (or some future development) when I have time. > > It's very much not the right idea to start doing the work on RHEL5. If > there's functionality that people want, you want to start working on it > against the upstream development tree. Not against a two year old > branch. Then, once you get something which is working acceptably > upstream and meets the requirements, it's reasonable to assess the > feasibility of a backport. > > Doing it ANY OTHER WAY all but assures the fact that you'll end up > having to do the work all over again against a new version. And thus > the cycle ends up repeating itself endlessly. >
Sadly many of the people I know who work in the stateless world usually have a mandate to make it work against RHEL versus Fedora. And while getting it working against RHEL-6 would be ideal... its not what has to be deployed last week. And yes.. thats the back-assward way corporate/government work seems to cycle. > For an analogy -- if you were to start working on an entirely new kernel > subsystem, would you do it against 2.6.18 or would you do it against > Linus's git? > > Jeremy > > _______________________________________________ > Stateless-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/stateless-list > -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ Stateless-list mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/stateless-list
