Messages in this thread | | | From | Peter Samuelson <> | Date | Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:18:02 -0600 (CST) | Subject | Re: Standard Development Integration |
| |
[Marco Colombo] > > Do you know the real reason Linus doesn't do this? I don't think it's > > the added burden of supporting two branches for a longer period of > > time. The real reason (at least one of the reasons) is psychological: > > to encourage developers to work on making 2.2.0pre and 2.2.x stable > > before spending all their time and energy adding new hairy features to > > Good reason. The only thing i have to object to it is that there are > so many developers now (and many of them organized as indipendent > teams) that only a small number of them fit the 'Gee! There's a new > kernel to play with!' model.
You may have a point. I don't know what the demographics of Linux kernel developers looks like these days.
> And there are more companies commercially supporting Linux today than > there were a couple of year ago (at 2.0 time). THEY won't stop > supporting a certain feature only bacause there's a new kernel to > play with, i think...
Shoot, companies supporting Linux can take care of themselves. They can move from supporting 2.2.x to supporting 2.4.x whenever they please. The invisible hand[1] will keep them honest and diligent.
[1] Adam Smith's metaphor for the free market.
> It's that 'making it somewhat more inconvenient to develop new stuff' > that I'm pointing out! I agree it was better to do that at 2.0 times, > but I'm wondering if that makes us pay today more that it gives!
Well, think in terms of whose ends it serves. In other words look from Linus's perspective. He wants a stable kernel (don't we all?) and always needs help squashing bugs before a release. *He* isn't the one developing kewl new features at that time. From his point of view it makes perfect sense to encourage people to work on the frozen branch.
I agree with Linus in wanting a stable kernel more than a featureful kernel. People actually *writing* the new features may have a different set of priorities....
Remember, the kernel is fully open source. If you *really* want to jump the gun and get a new kernel release cycle going, you are perfectly free to release your *own* series of kernels, incorporating the latest and greatest from around the world. It's been done before. Of course, you have to acquire enough credibility for people to take your patch series seriously. (Andrea gets away with it, Alan gets away with it, individual arch maintainers get away with it. You or I might have more trouble.)
> Thank you for pointing out what exacly the problem is. It's all in > the 'making it somewhat more inconvenient to develop new stuff'. I > think we should change it, to allow easier serious development at any > time.
As I said, it's a conscious decision on Linus's part. As such, your arguments are unlikely to change it, since it's obviously something he's thought about.
We seem to understand each other. I am more than willing to drop the thread, if you are.
Peter
- 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/
| |