|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2004-07-05 09:21:08
|
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, Julian Seward wrote: >> Actually, that's another question - are we still interested in trying >> to support 2.2 kernels? There are a few minor tweaks needed to make it >> compile but it isn't clear that it runs properly afterwards - there is >> some suggestion of problems with signal/syscall handling by the looks >> of the reports on the users list. > > I vote No. I don't think it's a good tradeoff to introduce extra > complexity to support an increasingly marginal group of users. > There's enough complexity in there already. I vote maybe. If it's a matter of not much code (eg. < 100 lines) to keep 2.2 working, I don't think we should remove support. Assuming that's the case, since we don't have 2.2 test machines[1] the support will slowly bit-rot. I think some kind of official statement like "we will support 2.2 so long as it's not too much trouble, but beware that it might not work as well as 2.4/2.6, tell us if you have problems and we will fix them if they're not too hard" would be good. Where that statement would go and who would make it, I don't know. [1] not that the tests are all that effective at the moment, since a number of them fail each night and are generally ignored. N |