Al Viro wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 04:53:58PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote: > > Al Viro wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote: > > > > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of > > > > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable > > > > kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable > > > > kernel (from the same series), while development kernels > > > > need time to stabilise with the new whizz-bang-pfouit stuff > > > > that you all so nicely add. > > > > > > "Drop-in" in which sense? That out-of-tree modules keep working? > > > Not really... > > > > Al, be reasonable. There are many out-of-tree GPL modules that won't be > > accepted into mainline, never mind those that shouldn't be accepted. > > But these modules do have a right to not be obsoleted by constant API > > changes. > > Modules do not have any rights; it's software...
Ok, this should have been read as kernel/module dev/user right to leverage each others code under GPL and out of good-will to yield an increased harvest. > > You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL > > module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community. > > The same thing happens with any yet-to-be-merged code. > > > Do you think this is fair? > > Yes, it is fair. Decision to maintain your code out of tree indefinitely > is your decision. It's not my decision, it's the kernel maintainers decision to reject inclusion for one reason or another. One reason could be a simple "we don't think this is useful". Also, I think it's unrealistic to expect thousands of little-used modules to be included into mainline. But, should we hinder that community to grow? Thanks! -- Al - 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/