[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Development tree, PLEASE?
    On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:31:12 MST, Michael Loftis said:

    > It's horrificly expensive to maintain large numbers of machines (even if
    > it's automated) as it is. If you're doing embedded development too or
    > instead, it gets even harder when you need certain bugfixes or minor
    > changes, but end up having to redevelop things or start maintaining your
    > own kernel fork.

    But you're perfectly happy to make the kernel developers do the equivalent thing
    when they have to maintain 2 forks (a stable and devel). Go back and look at
    the status of the 2.5 tree - there were *large* chunks of time when 2.4 or 2.5
    would get an important bugfix, but the other tree wouldn't get it for *weeks*
    because of the hassle of cross-porting the patch.
    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-01-20 20:06    [W:0.025 / U:18.576 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site