From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262291AbTLBQCT (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:02:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262283AbTLBQCT (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:02:19 -0500 Received: from strauss.physik.TU-Cottbus.De ([141.43.75.28]:38600 "EHLO strauss.physik.tu-cottbus.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262291AbTLBQCR (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2003 11:02:17 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:01:36 +0100 From: Ionut Georgescu To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 future Message-ID: <20031202160136.GB10915@physik.tu-cottbus.de> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200312011226.04750.nbensa@gmx.net> <20031202115436.GA10288@physik.tu-cottbus.de> <20031202120315.GK13388@conectiva.com.br> <20031202131311.GA10915@physik.tu-cottbus.de> <3FCC95BB.60205@wmich.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FCC95BB.60205@wmich.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 08:38:03AM -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote: > > The point was, the patch is perfectly and easily usable the way it is. > There stands to be no reason to make it part of the vanilla kernel other > than a very slight convenience factor for a small minority of users. > Tosatti thinks that that versus changes to this stable kernel that touch > common code are unacceptable. Despite the maturity of the project, it > just doesn't make sense to include it in the vanilla kernel, it would be > a disservice to the rest of the users of 2.4.x kernels that do so for > stability, not only in the not crashing sense, but also in the code-base > sense. And the number of users who don't use xfs so greatly outnumber > the users that do that it's a mute point for Tosatti. > Just suck it up, plug on with the complex command of cat xfs.patch | > patch -p1 or move up to 2.6. Anyone using xfs can obviously do either > already and everyone not can continue not being affected by new code if > they dont want to. > I can understand that, but I don't take 2.6 for an answer. 2.4 is not yet dead and it won't be for a long time, just as 2.2 has gotten to 2.2.25, although 2.4.0 was out when, 3 years ago ? Ionut -- *************** * Ionut Georgescu * http://www.physik.tu-cottbus.de/~george/ * Registered Linux User #244479 * * "In Windows you can do everything Microsoft wants you to do; in Unix you * can do anything the computer is able to do."