lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: three kernel trees?
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:

> Alan,
>
> Were Linux to go totally modular in 2.5, development cycles will be
> reduced by 1/2 to 1/3. This is because you could always roll back to
> known good modules to post a release. The way you guys are going, if
> Linux stays monolithic, your cycles will get longer and longer.
> Modularity will allow multiple people to proceed in parallel without
> every patch and bug going through you and Linus all the time (which
> would mean you could enjoy more free time).
>

I don't really see what class of problems this would solve. It could be that we
mean different things with modular. Do you mean distribute the driver source
separately from the kernel source or do you mean going none monolitic by creating a
stable binary interface?? I think the second one is going to be hard to get pass
Linus and the first one is going to result in alot of drivers not uptodate with
kernel changes.

The problem with a binary interface is that if it was easy to do one we did not
need one in the first place as that would suggest that the source code interface
also was stable.

>
> This does not solve the problem of integration testing, but eh solution
> here is to create an integration test group whose sole charter is to
> test modules in an integrated framework as they roll off the assembly
> line. I am speaking from my commercial software development experienes

Good luck finding anyone doing this job. It's hard to make people write
documentation this is going to be impossible. This is a solution that works if you
can pay people but I don't think it's going to work when volunteers is doing it.

>
> here. Linux is falling into the same rut NetWare did as it became
> successful -- too much work for mere mortals without some new structures
> put in place.
>
> Just a thought.
>

Yes but is anyone taking notes on what work really is taking up all the time? Is it
really drivers that is the problem? To me it lookes more like a problem with
deciding what really is the goal of every new version that make all sort of late
changes creap into the kernel that increase the time to a stable version. Making
the TODO list before instead of at the end would probably make people concentrate
on the same thing.

Just another thought.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans