Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 23 Mar 2003 17:53:36 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Ptrace hole / Linux 2.2.25 |
| |
Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>I see a lot of new Red Hat work getting discussed, landing in the 2.5 >>tree, and then getting backported as a value-add 2.4 feature for an RH >>kernel. Other stuff is "hack it into stability, but it's ugly and should >>not go to Marcelo." >> >>IMNSHO this perception is more a not-looking-hard-enough issue rather >>than reality. > > > Well ... or we had different meanings ;-) yes, lots of stuff is in 2.5 > but I was meaning 2.4. If there's stuff that's in both RH and UL kernels, > and it's stable enough for them both to ship as their product, it sounds > mergeable to me.
That's a _really_ naive statement, that proves you haven't even looked at what you are talking about.
The currently released RHAS is based off 2.4.9, with a lot of tweaks specifically for the VM/VFS layer as it existed at that time. (Remember, the VM was basically replaced in 2.4.10) That's a totally dead end branch (from a mainline perspective) with very little mergeable worth.
Still, if you want to create a "2.4-features++" branch, I think that there is value there. Just PLEASE don't put the junk in mainline.
>>I have no idea about UnitedLinux kernel, but for RHAS I wager there is >>next to _nil_ patches you would actually want to submit to Marcelo, for >>three main reasons: it's a 2.5 backport, or, it's a 2.4.2X backport, or, >>its an ugly-hack-for-stability that should not be in a mainline kernel >>without cleaning anyway. > > > I don't see what's wrong with putting 2.5 backports into 2.4 once they're > stable. And I'd rather have an ugly-hack-for-stability than an unstable > kernel ... 2.5 is the place for cleanliness ... 2.4 is a dead end that > just needs to work.
That's no excuse for sloppiness in 2.4.
> Right ... I think we're agreeing about what's the difference. Just > disagreeing about what should be in mainline 2.4. If most others think it > shouldn't go either, than I guess we need a separate tree for a 2.4 that > works, not a 2.4 that's pretty ...
I agree that we are disagreeing about what should be mainline 2.4 :)
"People are shipping it, so it must be good" is the proverbial road-to-hell-paved-with-good-intentions.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |