Eric, I hate to break this to you, but they ain't gonna do it.
I like the new configurator, but It wouldn't matter if the thing cured
cancer. Removing an old system from a stable series just doesn't happen. We
don't even remove stuff that's clearly broken, we just mark it dangerous.
Even backporting the new configurator as an optional paralell subsystem is
pretty controversial. Technical merit aside, too many people are still
shellshocked over the VM thing.
Now that 2.4 has been handed off to Marcelo, people are looking for LESS
changes out of the stable series. To be blunt, we haven't really HAD a
stable series in 2.4 yet. Even 2.4.15 was almost a "dontuse" kernel due to
the shutdown sync thing. After 11 months of frustration, people are just a
TOUCH sensitive on this issue. Don't prod the sore tooth here, it's all pain
and no benefit...
> But that would be strictly Marcelo's call.
He's going to say no. But by all means, ask him if that will resolve the
issue. (I'll even refrain from calling it a cop-out, if this will help. :)
> It would be up to him to decide whether the tradeoff were worth it.
Worth it for who?
If the whole point of merging the new configurator into 2.4 is to drop the
old one, and we can confirm that's not going to happen (by asking Marcelo),
then there is no point in trying to merge the new configurator into 2.4.
(All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.)
Follow 2.5 and drop 2.4 support or hand it off to somebody else if you don't
want to do it. A better configurator is yet another reason for people to
migrate to 2.6 when it comes out. This is a good thing...
Rob
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/