Dave Jones wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 05:49:41PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> 
>  > There will always be code that's not ready before the freeze, and that
>  > won't
>  > make it in.  If this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a need for a
>  > cutoff
>  > date, would there?  "Oh, development is over, there are no more
>  > interesting
>  > new patches anywhere, we can all go home now."  Doesn't happen.
> 
> Likewise, there _will_ be /some/ things that go in after the freeze.
> 
> - Things that are broken now that absolutely need fixing at all costs
>   before the freeze. Thankfully, most of this work seems to be driver
>   work. Some subsystems (ISDN, i2o, some of the net protos) need some
>   more indepth surgery, but this is imo all valid work that can happen
>   post freeze.
> - Zero impact features.
>   As an example, now that the x86 subarch support is merged, even quite
>   large things, like support for Voyager has no impact on anything else
>   now. Likewise new filesystems as long as it doesn't require VFS
>   changes. (Something the Reiser4 folks seem to have realised).
> - "Oops, this is totally broken" features.
>   There still seems no concensus on volume management for 2.6
>   Leaving existing LVM1 users dead in the water with the reply
>   "leave it to vendors to add the dm/evms patch" just doesn't seem
>   right. We need *something* for 2.6
> 

Thanks Dave, those were exactly the features I was worried about not getting 
in 2.6.

Cheers,
Nicholas


-
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/