On 21/06/07, Zoltán HUBERT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip]
All people who might read this know that traditionally stable releases are even numbered and development branches are odd numbered. This changed during late develoment of 2.6, according to my analysis because of the "invention" of GIT which was itself necessary because of BitKeeper (insert ooooooooold flame-wars here) and which allowed very dynamic develoment.
Git itself, nor bitkeeper was not the main reason behind the desition to maintain 2.6.x as the stable kernel going forward.
While this has been effective, alternative voices (Mr Morton complaining that more bugs were added than repaired, semi-stable semi-supported 2.6.x.y branches where invented...) come more and more into the front.
I myself have argued that we should be focusing more on stability and regression fixing, but I'm not so sure that a 2.6.7 devel branch would solve this. In general the 2.6.x.y -stable kernels seem to be doing the job pretty good.
The upcoming GPL v3 versus v2 debate will make things worse,
How is the GPLv2 vs GPLv3 debate relevant to kernel stability, ABI stability or anything else of the sort?
and we all know this. The un-ending stable ABI argument goes into this same direction.
What I think you are wishing for is a stable API - which is not going to happen; please read Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt (http://lxr.linux.no/source/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt). A stable ABI we already have. [snip]
You might think it's easy for me to simply "use" Linux and complain while you're doing the hard stuff. As it happens, the current development/stable model makes our life as "users" more and more difficult.
In what way? Most users should be using distribution kernels anyway, not vanilla kernel.org kernels. Those distribution kernels should provide you with all the stability you require.
I'm using Linux since 1997 on a Mac thanks to LinuxPPC-1997, and I'm a hard pusher of Linux whenever possible, sometimes against the common sense, for example when I favor using National Instrument cards with Linux drivers and custom written TCP/IP server against easy LabView on Windows. While some of you dislike closed source drivers, the choices "we users" face are: - closed source drivers with closed source OS - closed source drivers with open source OS Please consider that we are living in a REAL world, and not Disney-Land.
As far as I am aware, both nVidia and ATI have closed drivers available for you to use if you please. And they should work just fine with most distribution kernels as well as vanilla.
So I've demonstrated that from a "users" perspective a new stable Linux would be of advantage. I'll now list what I suggest for this new stable branch:
I don't think you have demonstrated that. How specifically is the current development model hurting you? What exactely would we gain by switching back to the old stable/unstable branch model? [snip]
Why on earth call "kernel object" things that are "kernel modules" ? And that every person calls "modules" and not "objects" ? I know I know, in UNIX dynamic libraries are .so "shared objects", so what ? A "module" is a "module" and NOT an "object", call a cat a cat.
It sure is an object, it's even called object code. I think the name suits just fine. In any case, it's just a name.
Third, while a stable ABI in a dynamically developed kernel is a difficult/impossible/unwanted feature,
A stable ABI is very much a wanted feature and one that a lot of work goes into maintaining. Note; ABI != API.
it should be possible to implement in a stable branch. This could even be a distinction between "stable" and "development" branches. And it would certainly help vendors of closed-source drivers.
If they want to keep their drivers closed they get to do all the hard work of tracking kernel API changes. Their choice, their problem. I don't think you'll find very many people on this list who gives a damn about the troubles of closed source driver developers. [snip] -- Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't top-post http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html Plain text mails only, please http://www.expita.com/nomime.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
