> Perhaps it should be considered splitting off a 2.2 kernel that
> conforms to the old standard, and a parallel 3.0 version with the
> resource management and other interface breaking code in it. Later
> development will occur on 3.0 as 3.1. This provides a kernel (2.2) that
> anyone can use and prepares everyone for 3.2.
I think that would be even worse than the most dastardly of Andrew's
plans. The whole issue here is how to maintain maximum compatibility, not
how to splinter the kernel into more incompatible pieces.
The idea of maintaining _two_ 'development' kernels is just a nightmare.
phil