Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Feb 1999 16:48:32 -0500 | From | Arvind Sankar <> | Subject | Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on |
| |
On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 10:17:54PM +0300, Khimenko Victor wrote: > In <199902041856.NAA00105@cutter-john.MIT.EDU> Monty (xiphmont@mit.edu) wrote: > > M> No more cc:s to cdwrite or linux-scsi, please. > > >>> 2.2 is supposed to _be_ stable, not gradually stabilize. That's what > >>> 2.1/2.3 are for. > >> > >>Unfortunatelly it's not possible. Joe average will not even try "development" > >>kernel and some errors could not be found without A LOT OF users. > > M> So fix the bugs. Don't try to roll in new features or optimizations. > M> One specific trouble I was talking about happened when 2.1 lasted long > M> enough that developers decided to roll 2.1 features back into 2.0. Of > M> *course* you're going to miss something! > > You could not get 100% compatibility with ANY change (even if you'll just fix > bug this will probably broke someone program! that's why quite a few well-known > bugs in Windows could not be fixed)...
I assume this is a joke...
> As fast as this does not affect userspace API it's not a problem to me. Source > compatibility is good but binary-compatibility... Even if binary-only modules > was mistakenly allowed bu Linus in first place it's not excuse to make > developers of them happy :-)
Look, it's not just a question of binary-only modules. Even if you have source in a distributed environment, you still have the problem of rebuilding 1000's of client machines (and, at least in one case, just because someone decided to shave off a few microseconds with better cache alignment). This doesn't make sense.
-- arvind
- 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/
| |