From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758659AbXKLLK1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:10:27 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756120AbXKLLKR (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:10:17 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:34902 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755484AbXKLLKP (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 06:10:15 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: ciol Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken? References: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:09:27 -0700 In-Reply-To: (ciol13@gmail.com's message of "Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:56:57 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ciol writes: > Hi, I'd like to ask you a few questions: > > * Do you like the way linux distributions integrate the kernel? > > * Wouldn't you prefer they ship with the stable and still maintained 2.6.16.X, > while providing optionally the latest kernel for those who want or just have a > new hardware? > > * Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the "I don't trust in > upstream" development model are broken? (And why) I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection of software versions that are all known to work together is very interesting, and useful. Making it so you can deliver something that just works to end users is always interesting. The only thing you miss out on are new features like the latest hardware support. I think forking packages just so you can claim they are frozen is a dubious practice. Especially if features are added in those forks. (Yes new hardware support is a feature). Eric