Re: PROPOSAL: New NEW development model

[Bill Davidsen]

John Richard Moser wrote:

> Still, a month or two to adapt to a new task scheduler out of 6 months
> leaves 4-5 months per stable release if the Volatile branch decides to
> hack up the scheduler.  This is still a better scenario then "VM and
> scheduler infrastructures may change on any given release."
>
>
>
> So OK, that's what's good here; so what's wrong with it?  We've already
> established that there will be a minimal level of added work for a
> maintainer to keep the Stable up.  Are there any other drawbacks?  If
> not, any objections to trying to sell this one to Linus and Andrew?  :)

Knock yourself out, I would be happy if they would just agree not to 
take features out of a stable series or intentionally break them. If new 
features don't break the old ones I don't think there's a persuasive 
argument to keep them out.

--
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/