From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751343AbWAWM17 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:27:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751320AbWAWM17 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:27:59 -0500 Received: from mipsfw.mips-uk.com ([194.74.144.146]:30997 "EHLO bacchus.net.dhis.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751343AbWAWM16 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:27:58 -0500 Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:41:56 +0000 From: Ralf Baechle To: Michael Loftis Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Development tree, PLEASE? Message-ID: <20060121114156.GB3456@linux-mips.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 08:17:40AM -0700, Michael Loftis wrote: > > OK, I don't know abotu others, but I'm starting to get sick of this > unstable stable kernel. Either change the statements allover that were > made that even-numbered kernels were going to be stable or open 2.7. > Removing devfs has profound effects on userland. It's one thing to screw > with all of the embedded developers, nearly all kernel module developers, > etc, by changing internal APIs but this is completely out of hand. Like devfs or not - but the elemination of devfs was announced ages ago and anybody reading this list knew it for even much longer. So this example just serves to show that for some users no grace time is long enough. Ralf