On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 17:40 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 02:24:34PM -0700, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 13:48 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > > > > Well since I seem to be talking to the right person now, I know you hate this > > > > question, but ... how strongly would you object to having an rt kernel > > > > variant within Fedora? > > > > > > LOL. I asked this question two years ago. I doubt the answer has > > > changed. :) > > > > But the situation HAS changed. A LOT. There is now (or is going to be) a > > realtime kernel in _RedHat Enterprise_ of all places. If it is good and > > stable for RHEL why wouldn't it be good for Fedora? > > Largely a manpower thing. We have staff we can throw at RHEL projects. > Fedora, not so much. Yeah, sure, easy to understand (same here :-) -- Fernando > Supporting an extra kernel variant is a big deal. > Given how understaffed the Fedora kernel team is in comparison to the > workload dealing with incoming bugs etc, it's not something we should > just do and hope for the best. Even with the recent growth within > our team, we're still totally buried with stuff to do with the non-rt kernel. > > > In the latest spins of my rt kernel I have actually used the patch set > > of the RHEL beta realtime kernel _and_ the patch set of the latest > > Fedora kernels [NOT fun to integrate!] > > That's also an additional reason why we shy away from it for Fedora. > Fedora needs to be lightweight enough that we can quickly move to newer > upstream releases. We lost a lot of agility when we were carrying Xen > for exactly the same reason. And the idea of 'well have kernel-rt be > based on an earlier version' doesn't fly because then userspace has to > deal with two possible environments (Another case where Xen burned us). _______________________________________________ Fedora-music-list mailing list Fedora-music-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list
