On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 11:29:08AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | The trouble as I see it is that the real problems in the 1.4.x tree stem > | from the kernel being in a state of transition from old design to new. My > | reading of discussions from those who know is that fixing some (major) > | bugs _requires_ this transition to be pushed on. > > I do not belive this. What I think is the case is that those in > "charge" of the transition are unwilling
'unwilling' is too strong a word I suppose. > to work on making a intermediate state stable. > > (anyhow I see noone moving the transition forward...) I've put out a 'small steps' plan where the steps are of a size where everyone can contribute. I _am_ currently busy. I'd expect a free week or even two in October/November, though. > | A serious alternative might be to push the head of the cvs tree to 1.5 and > | to backport stable features to a 1.4 tree based on 1.3.x. John has already > | suggested something similar. > > I'd like to avoid this. Me too. Andre'
