Udev in b6_0: to be or not to be

DJ Lucas dj at lucasit.com
Tue Jun 1 20:45:15 PDT 2004


Larry Lawrence wrote:
> "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote in message
> news:40BCB3B1.5060907 at linuxfromscratch.org...
> 
>>This is exactly the reason we _wanted_ to put udev and hotplug into
>>HEAD, so that they could be tested on a larger number of systems than
>>just the ones that us BELFS testers were playing with. If we didn't do
>>that, we could only "play follow the leader" and wait for the other
>>distros to make everything right with the world before we put it into
>>the book, and the community has said they don't want to go that direction.
> 
> 
> And this is exactly why HEAD should not become test at points in time
> (usually determined by releases). The differences of opinion really do come
> down to:
> 
> Do you put Unstable into Test when it becomes stable  OR
> Do you pull Unstable from Test when it proves unstable.
> 
> The community prefers the latter, something I will probably never
> understand.
> 
> Larry
> 

Guess I don't fall in line with the community either.  Since the 
begining of the branching, I've not liked the order.  As Larry put it 
above, with our current branching, the latter is always true.  When the 
branching thread was first proposed:

http://archive.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2002-October/029091.html

BTW, Notice the date....IIRC it was discussed bigtime once earlier that 
summer, and touched upon several times before that.  Since that time, I 
had evisioned an acutal unstable *branch*.  Items would be pulled from 
that branch when appropriate and merged into head, all the time keeping 
head relatively sane.  Once all the goals for the next release have been 
met, branch and continue on.  Unstable can continue on it's current 
branch, or refresh itself at branch point...or any other time for that 
matter.

{IMO}Unstable should not have to be terribly concerned with grammar, or 
spelling, or punctuation (of course within sensable limits so that it is 
at least understandable) as unstable should never be pulled directly as 
release quality material.  Unstable should be a playground, a proof of 
concecpt if you will, but nothing more.{/IMO}

I hope the original BELFS maintainers don't take offense to that, none 
intended as current HEAD is certainly nowhere even close to how I had 
envisioned unstable.

-- DJ Lucas



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list