On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Stefan Richter wrote: > >>> If you do not like to wait for Linus and Greg, you simply have to derive >>> an own kernel which additionally contains your preferred fixes. >> >> Yes, because clearly everybody thinks the process is perfect, and >> criticizing it is heresy. > > Close. Not everyone. For example, you do not think the process is > perfect. So you think the process is *perfect*? I would have expected reasonable people to know that nothing is perfect, realize the sarcasm, and meditate for a second. But it seems expecting somebody to agree the process is not perfect is too much to ask. > I don't think Stefan meant the above as tongue-in-cheek, for what it's > worth. Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an > interesting exercise, and would probably fulfill a need for a certain > audience. > > It's not like nobody does that already, anyway. For example, I hear > Fedora has a kernel that they maintain well for a different audience, > using different rules. Of course, although the difference with the stable kernel would be very small if the only thing added is an extra rule for acceptance: "It reverts an earlier patch to 'stable'." But "we do this, and if you don't like it you can do whatever you want" is not a valid argument in favor of the status quo, even though it's used a lot in open source, and it's true, and there's nothing wrong with that... I yet have to see an answer to my arguments, and not a regurgitated answer for something nobody is proposing. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
