On 02/11/2010 08:53 PM, Don Quixote de la Mancha wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> So what are the reasons for its absence from the mainline kernel then? If it >> works better than the current mechanisms and is open source, why does it take >> years to get it into mainline? Is there some showstopper/disadvantage/problem? > > I don't actually know, but I would expect that simple intertia is the problem. > > To get something into the kernel means that the core kernel developers > have to deal with it. > > I know from my own experience, that if I were in the middle of a big > coding project, and my eggs were served sunny side up at breakfast > rather than over easy, then my head would surely explode. > > I expect that the kernel.org developers all face much the same kind of problem. > > There have been many, many deserving projects that were externally > developed for *years* before being adopted into the kernel.org kernel, > if they were adopted at all. And that can be a large part of the problem - compare the rate at which differing virtualization implementations got their bits merged and the degree of participation with the kernel community that those projects had in their earlier phases. "Merge early. Merge often.", to mince an oft-quoted idea. For what it's worth I've had my own problems getting things that were developed out-of-tree with little or no feedback merged - and for good reason. Regards, Bryn. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
