From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268164AbUGWXFq (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:05:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268166AbUGWXFq (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:05:46 -0400 Received: from 209-128-98-078.BAYAREA.NET ([209.128.98.78]:26010 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268164AbUGWXFo (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jul 2004 19:05:44 -0400 Message-ID: <32791.66.11.168.47.1090623872.squirrel@www.zytor.com> In-Reply-To: <20040723214055.GR19329@fs.tum.de> References: <40FFD760.8060504@unix.eng.ua.edu> <20040723214055.GR19329@fs.tum.de> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 16:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: A users thoughts on the new dev. model From: hpa@zytor.com To: "Adrian Bunk" Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > One problem from a user's point of view is that removal of obsolete code > that works sufficiently for some users. > > Andrew said explicitely in a mail to linux-kernel that he'd consider > removing devfs "mid-2005" - and it didn't sound as if this would only be > a -mm "feature". > > Even if 2.7 is started this doesn't has to imply that it has to be > flooded with big changes - a short 2.7 with relativley few invasive > changes might also be an option. > There is no difference from a user's point of view between a "short 2.7" and "a close -mm tree." Either way devfs is on death row, because it's buggy and unmaintained. Any piece of code, *especially* one as invasive as devfs, which is buggy and unmaintained is a hassle to for *all* kernel development, and have to be extricated at some point. -hpa