[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:0.186 / U:0.396 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site