Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Development tree, PLEASE? | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:03:52 -0500 |
| |
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:31:12 MST, Michael Loftis said:
> It's horrificly expensive to maintain large numbers of machines (even if > it's automated) as it is. If you're doing embedded development too or > instead, it gets even harder when you need certain bugfixes or minor > changes, but end up having to redevelop things or start maintaining your > own kernel fork.
But you're perfectly happy to make the kernel developers do the equivalent thing when they have to maintain 2 forks (a stable and devel). Go back and look at the status of the 2.5 tree - there were *large* chunks of time when 2.4 or 2.5 would get an important bugfix, but the other tree wouldn't get it for *weeks* because of the hassle of cross-porting the patch. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |