Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > Ok.  So, for the sake of simplicity (same interface and whatnot in 2.2 and 2.4)
> > what's wrong with having to use DevFS in 2.2 as well?  It does exist, it's still
> 
> Stability, minimum change, maximum back compatibility. As has been pointed
> out - keeping usbdevfs for 2.2 solves that

I am *just* a tester.  But I'd like to offer my two bits.

I understand that the distribution folks are not going to 
overhaul their system installation processes and initialization
scripts as soon as 2.4 becomes available.  Making these changes
will likely be the biggest chunk of work they'll need to do
in the process of fully enabling and supporting all the new 2.4
functionality.  I imagine the distributors will want to see long 
beta cycles when they overhaul their setup and initialization scripts.

I wonder, since you (Alan) say that the 2.2 backport will likely
not make it into the 2.2 tree and since it might make sense for
the backport to use the usbdevfs approach while the 2.4 tree uses 
another (devfs or some ioctl approach), whether continuing to
develop the backport makes sense.

Personally, I think the most important thing is nailing down
the implementation for 2.4 and getting a solid 2.4 finished.  
It's pretty disturbing to see how many broad implementation 
features are still being sorted out.

Am I right in thinking that getting the USB support finished is
the major hurdle in releasing 2.4?

Perhaps it would be the most efficient and best use of our 
precious development resources to just make USB in 2.4 solid.  
Folks who have to have USB support would then have a lot of 
incentive to test the USB support and help us make it rock 
solid fast.

Is there some reason I don't know about that will prevent the
rapid adoption of 2.4 when it is ready (other than the time
lag associated with the distributions getting new 2.4 releases
on the market)? 

I hope this helps,
        Miles

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to