On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 18:18, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Alan, I think your problem is that you really think that the tree _I_ want > is what _you_ want.
No I think you just misunderstood the point I was trying to make. They are different trees and the difference is what stops you just doing the layering Andrew seemed to think would work. > I look at this from a _layering_ standpoint. Not from a "stable tree" > standpoint at all. >From a layering perspective the .x.y.z kernel is a dead end fork each 2.x.y and that means it can and should make use of the ugly short term fixes that solve problems. > And that means that such a kernel would not get all patches that you'd > want. That's fine. That was never the aim of it. The _only_ point of this > kernel would be to have a baseline that nobody can disagree with. Thats fine. It's a useful check, although it means we now have another layer of obfuscation. > In other words, it's not a "let's fix all serious bugs we can fix", but a > "this is the least common denominator that is basically acceptable to > everybody, regardless of what their objectives are". Acceptable to whom ? Users want all the security issues fixed. > So if you want to fix a security issue, and the fix is too big or invasive > or ugly for the "least common denominator" thing, then it simply does not > _go_ into that kernel. At that point, it goes into an -ac kernel, or into > my kernel, or into a vendor kernel. See? If you put the corresponding "ugghh" fix into the 2.6.x.y sure. Thats what I'm trying to say. > So think of it as a piece in the puzzle, not the whole picture. I think a lot of the folks who are using the 2.6 kernels and not using vendor kernels have enough puzzles already 8) Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
