Messages in this thread | | | From | Bill Davidsen <> | Subject | Re: PROPOSAL: New NEW development model | Date | Tue, 26 Oct 2004 17:56:41 -0400 |
| |
John Richard Moser wrote:
> Still, a month or two to adapt to a new task scheduler out of 6 months > leaves 4-5 months per stable release if the Volatile branch decides to > hack up the scheduler. This is still a better scenario then "VM and > scheduler infrastructures may change on any given release." > > > > So OK, that's what's good here; so what's wrong with it? We've already > established that there will be a minimal level of added work for a > maintainer to keep the Stable up. Are there any other drawbacks? If > not, any objections to trying to sell this one to Linus and Andrew? :)
Knock yourself out, I would be happy if they would just agree not to take features out of a stable series or intentionally break them. If new features don't break the old ones I don't think there's a persuasive argument to keep them out.
-- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - 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/
| |