[arch-dev-public] Kernel - vanilla vs patched?
paul at mattal.com
Fri Nov 9 07:49:23 EST 2007
Tom K wrote:
> My understanding of The Arch Way, as it applies here, is that we patch
> for bugfixes e.g. ipw2x00, and for enhancements to existing
> functionality e.g. alsa. In the referenced bug report, there are
> differing dev views expressed - as I'm posting this, I'll include my
> view, which is that we should not add new features to kernel26.
I would add to this that we endeavor to make minor, non-invasive patches
that obviously (apparently) do more good than bad.
For instance, we generally frown on large patches, unless they're
clearly related to a single subsystem and released by the maintainers of
that subsystem (like alsa) as more stable.
I would really like to hear from people who have a substantive objection
to particular patches in kernel26. If there are substantial reasons why
the patching interferes with activity that could be performed with an
unpatched kernel, I think we should at least consider dropping those
patches. In general, we should not break things that would work if the
kernel were vanilla, and we try hard not to do that.
If we must split, I would recommend we go about this differently, which
is to say that we have a kernel26vanilla or, perhaps more appropriately,
kernel26linus in [extra] which is maintained by those who feel that
kernel26 with patches is somehow unsuited to their needs.
More information about the arch-dev-public