Re: LSM BitKeeper tree obsolete? (Re: a problem in hooks of sock ?!)

From: Greg KH (greg@private)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 11:07:37 PDT


On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 01:12:31AM -0700, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> 
> I don't understand this approach at all. Was anyone here at the kernel 
> summit 2004? Can you comment on these questions:
> 
>    * How will development and stable kernel releases be distinguished
>      within 2.6?

There will be no such distinguishing.

>    * What kind of new LSM functionality would be considered for 2.6, if
>      any?

Who knows, make up a patch and submit it for inclusion and we'll take it
from there.

> Greg, Chris? Got any insights?

I gave a talk about the change in the development model, or in reality,
the lack of change, as we (the kernel developers) are just going to keep
on doing what we have been doing for a while now, at OLS and OSCON the
past few weeks.  My OSCON presentation is at:
	http://www.kroah.com/linux/talks/oscon_2004_kernel_devel_talk/
with a writeup/review of it (that explains it in a bit more detail) at:
	http://www.oblomovka.com/entries/2004/07/29#1091143320

Hopefully that will help explain things a bit better.  If not, go read
the lwn.net kernel article last wed, as it is quite good too.

thanks,

greg k-h



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 11:09:02 PDT