Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se>]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 11:28:22AM -0500, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> I'd imagine that it would, JMHO, but it makes little sense, at least for
> prime-time level maintenance of a kernel who's architecture, while valid
> for use in many areas, is still far limited, even in light of 2.4. 

The maintenance of the 2.0-tree will continue. I see no point in
ceasing to maintain it just because the release of 2.6. They simply do
not target the same audience.

> The advancements which 2.6 will bring, over 2.4, will be extraordinarily
> different, in terms of overall architecture it seems. Even if it's only
> a 20% architecture difference from 2.4, think of how much further from
> 2.0 that is. 

Yes, and that is why 2.0 is still maintained; for some users, the step
between 2.0 and a later release is too large when it comes to how many
userland programs that need to be upgraded/retested/rewritten.

Really, there is little reason to worry; my contribution to the
development of 2.5 (and a forthcoming 2.6/2.7/2.8/...) would probably
not be much larger were I to drop maintenance of the 2.0-tree. Possibly,
Marcello and Linus would receive a few more odd fixes for typos and
the Config-files, and maybe some MCA-related fixes, but as things stand
right now, the fact that I only have a dialup-connection stands between
me and serious development (<subliminal message>anyone care to sponsor a
faster connection or hire me?</subliminal message>)


Regards: David Weinehall
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </