On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 08:00:00AM -0600, Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote: > I am sure somebody will find one in short order. My point was that I > can not believe developers have done there testing in the 2.4 "Stable" > series instead of branching and starting the 2.5 series, as they > should have 9 months ago. I think the Linux kernel should be > maintained via cvs/cvsup instead of bulk archive downloads -- but that > is another issue. Create one tree for stable and one tree for > current, in the FreeBSD model. Historically speaking, 2.4.x has been the most dynamic kernel of the bunch, as far as major changes go. I don't need to go into details here, regardless it is very atypical for the stable kernel to change so much. Read the lkml for more heated debates on the subject. The long and short of it, I agree. CVS and CVSup may not be the best tools for the number of separate branches that need to be coordinated, but either is better than none. There's been many discussions and arguments regarding this very topic. See lkml for more flamage. The upside is this. 2.4.x has been handed over to Marcelo to maintain. Linus, the dynamic man, is "out of the stable loop", so to speak. Additional things to be happy about are the full integration of LVM and ext3 in the stable kernel. I now have less to patch when I want to build a new kernel! Yay! One thing you might consider. Start a CVS tree of your own. Oh, there's a Linux distribution out there called Gentile, I think, that's based on a ports-like system. I'd be surprised if they didn't have a CVS for the kernel. Check it out. -- Chad Walstrom <chewie at wookimus.net> | a.k.a. ^chewie http://www.wookimus.net/ | s.k.a. gunnarr Key fingerprint = B4AB D627 9CBD 687E 7A31 1950 0CC7 0B18 206C 5AFD -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20011128/12a2a4c6/attachment.pgp