Adrian Bunk 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. > > "have a right" are strong words. > Who is granting them this right?
Good-will GPL style. > > You are effectively inhibiting the development of an out-of-tree GPL > > module pool, by constantly pulling the rug under that community. > > > > Do you think this is fair? > > Why are these modules not submitted for inclusion into the kernel? There are many reasons for this, but basically they are too under-developed to be included, and need more time to mature out-of-tree. 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/