From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932133AbWATUKp (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:10:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932135AbWATUKp (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:10:45 -0500 Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.85]:62724 "EHLO anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932133AbWATUKo (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:10:44 -0500 Message-ID: <43D143C2.3060507@superbug.co.uk> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:10:42 +0000 From: James Courtier-Dutton User-Agent: Mail/News 1.5 (X11/20060112) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Loftis CC: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, dtor_core@ameritech.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Development tree, PLEASE? References: <43D10FF8.8090805@superbug.co.uk> <6769FDC09295B7E6078A5089@d216-220-25-20.dynip.modwest.com> <30D11C032F1FC0FE9CA1CDFD@d216-220-25-20.dynip.modwest.com> <200601201903.k0KJ3qI7006425@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Michael Loftis wrote: > To more fully respond though.... > > Weeks is fine, and better than never. And there may be cases in which > the decision has to be made to 'abandon' a particular stable release in > favor of a newer version because of the difficulty or inability to > backport fixes. > > I think that it's fine to push the maintenance effort away from the > mainline developers, probably even desireable, but then the > bugfixing/etc tends to happen in a disparate manner, off on lots of > forks at different places without them making their way back to some > central place. > Please be more specific or stop posting. No one is going to bother answering you with any useful answer unless you are more specific. From the general trend of the thread so far, it seems like a fairly pointless request to me. All well known distros had absolutely no problem with devfs -> udevd transition, so why are you having problems? If you stop spending time posting, you might actually have time to fix your problems. James