On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:57:47PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This does not apply since we do not have a stable in-kernel API, and
> > therefore changes to the in-kernel API can by definition not be
> > regressions.
> >
> > 2.6.24 most likely contains hundreds of changes and removals of
> > in-kernel APIs that existed in 2.6.23.
> >
> > Are you seriously suggesting that e.g. every single change to any struct
> > under include/ [1] would require an announcement x kernel releases
> > before it can be implemented?
>
> Well, no, but that's not the point.
>...
Sorry if I was a bit harsh, but no change to the in-kernel API [1]
could ever be called a regression since we do not have a stable
in-kernel API.
And what annoyed was that this was one of at least 3 ongoing
linux-kernel threads where people tried to bring the notion that any
part of the in-kernel API had any kind of stability.
> J
cu
Adrian
[1] and that includes what is visible to modules
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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/
