On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:12:01 -0400 (EDT) Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Simply because there may be devices that work with the old scheme but not > > > with the new one. > > > > I considered this, and I see it as a textbook case of compatibility with > > unknown. We will never know unless we give up the traditional sequence, > > if only temporarily. > > Okay, how about if I send in a second patch that removes the old sequence? > Then both patches can go in the -mm series and get some testing, and if it > turns out to cause problems the second patch can be reverted. It would be my preference, yes. If it fails horribly, we'd need to use one of your more complicated schemes (e.g. try Windows 2 times, then Linux 2 times). Now, it may survive -mm phase and hit regressions once in Linus tree and distributions start shipping it. It's going to be a long time before we're sure the code is completely robust. But it's still shorter than "never". I haven't seen Greg saying anything about it. -- Pete ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
