Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Oct 2004 23:00:43 +0200 | From | Paolo Ciarrocchi <> | Subject | Re: Let's make a small change to the process |
| |
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:48:59 -0400, John Richard Moser <nigelenki@comcast.net> wrote: [...] > > | We, of course, need a maintainer for it, > > Yes, a little too much to maintain though isn't it? Maintainers to > continuously upkeep revisions that come out every few weeks potentially? > ~ Remember it's got to be able to withstand the test of time for quite a > while; why are people still maintaining 2.2? > > | maybe someone from OSDL (Randy?), maybe wli (he maintained his tree > | for a long time), maybe Alan (that is already applying these kind of > | fixes to his tree), maybe someone else... ? > | > > Common courteousy, don't volunteer people. :)
Just wrote name a few "famous" and "great" kernel hackers :)
> | Sounds reasonable ? > | > > Sounds too fast. I don't predict having a maintainer for each minor > release of the kernel (which is what you're saying here essentially), so > there'd be a need for one or a handfull of maintainers to spend loads of > time backporting fixes to a quickly mounting set of kernels.
Yes, one maintainer. But I'm not sure that each minor release of ther kernel needs a .Y version.
> I had <shameless plug> suggested an hour or two ago a scheme where the > current development model be based off, but periodic releases be made > "stable," basing on approximately 6 months between releases </shameless > plug>. I think it's a bit more sane to say that a maintainer may mount > up 4 kernels in 2 years to backport bugfixes into, if nobody else steps > up to the plate to help. > > Of course, eventually official support has to be dropped in either > scheme, because the same problem is faced: We can't expect people to > maintain a continuously mounting number of kernel revisions once the > workload becomes sufficiently high. A balance must be made between > dropping support for a non-volitile code base, and maintaining a support > period sufficiently long.
Not sure I get your point. Again, -ac is almost what I'm suggesting but I'd prefer to change it's name and formalize it publishing the .Y patchset to kernel,org with a name useful for the users.
Time to sleep now, I'll flight to Germany tomorrow so I'll be offline till Tuesday. But hey, you don't need me anymore ;-)
-- Paolo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |