* Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So I think udev actually is a good example of how to do it > right, we provide proper backwards compatibility in the kernel > to keep userspace working. I agree, i still have a udev system that i installed 5 years ago, and it's working mostly fine with current kernels. Compatibility is a desirable property, it is something that preserves our users - and if done right it's almost never a big issue technically. If it is hindering someone then there must be other problems. Of course to developers the simplest approach is always to just develop without regard for compatibility. The simplest form of that is that people write patches that work fine on their own systems but crash the kernel on other systems. We fix those bugs. Another, subtler form is when the patches work fine on their systems but break apps on other systems. We fix those bugs too. That's why we have testing, regression tracking and maintainers, to control that - compatibility is just another dimension to 'correctness', in the typical case with no inherent restrictions on future features and possibilities. Thanks, Ingo _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
