| 1 |
On Friday 03 October 2003 11:16 am, Tim Yamin wrote: |
| 2 |
> Brian Jackson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Friday 03 October 2003 04:36 am, Brad Laue wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> >>The kernel team seems to be both the smallest and most behind the times, |
| 7 |
> >>and this is sad given that they're one of the most important teams |
| 8 |
> >>involved in the project. We're two kernel versions behind (and don't |
| 9 |
> >>justify that by claiming 2.4.21 or 2.4.22 had bugs, that doesn't fly), |
| 10 |
> >>and show no signs of making it to a 2.4.23 release. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> True, but we have a pretty much bug-less product [current sources] [or |
| 14 |
> nearing there ;-) ] |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
That is very true and to be applauded, but in the linux world (and Gentoo |
| 17 |
specifically) you can't rest. You've got to be constantly supporting new |
| 18 |
hardware, new protocols, etc. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> New patchset = lots of new problems, IMO... And because of the diversity |
| 22 |
> as a kernel, simple alpha-testing will NOT fix this. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That's why we have pfeifer-sources, which may be somewhat poorly named for |
| 25 |
people to figure out it's the "testing sources" is just that. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > The team is behind the times or the releases are ;) |
| 30 |
> > Seriously though, we are definitely in need of more people, and things are |
| 31 |
> > likely to continue to be slow until there are mroe people working on |
| 32 |
stuff. |
| 33 |
> > |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> >>The kernel team needs more people. It needs to drastically reduce the |
| 36 |
> >>number of kernels in the tree which are of a customized nature |
| 37 |
> >>(xfs-sources, gs-sources, wolk-sources) until it can manage |
| 38 |
> >>gentoo-sources in a timely fashion. The kernel team needs to build a |
| 39 |
> >>subset of patches which form the core of the gentoo kernel. They then |
| 40 |
> >>need to enable all the additional features provided by xfs-sources, |
| 41 |
> >>wolk-sources and gs-sources on a per-use-flag basis, rather than having |
| 42 |
> >>three kernels to manage, each with three different sets of incompatible |
| 43 |
> >>patches. There obviously aren't enough resources to manage this. |
| 44 |
> > |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> I don't really think so: the other kernels are managed by others [non |
| 47 |
> X86 devs] and things work fine there. Yes, we need more people, but what |
| 48 |
> I'm pledging here is that we need *quality* and *experienced* |
| 49 |
> [preferably with Gentoo and C/++] devs so that we don't get problems |
| 50 |
> with their collaboration and spend even more time than simply getting on |
| 51 |
> with it "as is". |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
We can't just keep getting on with it "as is", Gentoo users are notorious for |
| 54 |
liking life on the bleeding edge (and often times just the other side of it). |
| 55 |
the current gentoo-sources doesn't support nforce ide very well, it doesn't |
| 56 |
support sata, this list could get very long. Adding some of these features is |
| 57 |
not trivial. At some point it will become necessary to move forward to newer |
| 58 |
kernels. |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> > |
| 62 |
> > There will probably be a few -sources removed. But the decision of what is |
| 63 |
not |
| 64 |
> > made yet. |
| 65 |
> > |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
> Like...? I'd be happy to take care of any which you are planning to scrap. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
No, there are some that shouldn't have been there in the first place, there |
| 70 |
are some that shouldn't have time wasted on them, etc. |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
> |
| 73 |
> -- |
| 74 |
> |
| 75 |
> Tim Yamin [plasmaroo] :: Gentoo X86 Kernel Development |
| 76 |
> plasmaroo@g.o |
| 77 |
> |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
-- |
| 80 |
Home -- http://www.brianandsara.net |
| 81 |
Gentoo -- http://gentoo.brianandsara.net |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
-- |
| 84 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives