On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:35:16PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: > Hey all, > > Would it be helpful if we actually have a public GIT server setup and > have the patches there instead one giant, unworkable monster patch? I'm fine with the current patches, deltas and splits but don't let me stop you from putting all changes into a GIT repository (as long as you do that and keep maintaining it) > I'm willing to set this up provided people will use it. tried GIT, didn't work for me ... > Or at least people send patches and commits to it instead of that > kernel-diff-monster! is that a nickname for me? :) > As to paying Herbert to port vserver to latest kernel, no offense, > but that may not be a good idea unless you want to hire Herbert. probably hard, unless you mean for consulting (which is what I do for money) ... > I've seen this already in other projects and it did not work out > so well. in this case it would allow me to do less consulting and more Linux-VServer specific work (and still pay my bills :) > For example, grsecurity. As far as I can tell, development > stalled there. how's that related? > Kind of like it stalled in vserver. huh? why do you think that development stalled in Linux-VServer? (or what do you mean by vserver?) note: the changes in 2.6.24-2.6.26 (caused by the partial adoption of OS-Level virtualization and related breakage) requires major changes to certain parts of Linux-VServer, which in turn require a lot of testing before we will flag it 'Stable' ... as for recent development, go and get the experimental version (currently 2.3.0.35-pre5) and let us know how it works for you (and/or what issues you have) > If you are willing to hire a vserver developer to get things moving, > please do. > But one-time "contract" doesn't work long term. naturally, per definition note: I'm all for hiring additional Linux-VServer developers, the more the merrier ... > So, either, > > 1. people start paying people to get vserver work done, or > 2. people start to volunteer time to get things done. > Either way works. But having pledge drives (or what seem to be pledge > drives) just indicates the project is in its death-throws. > Now, regarding actual work on stuff. Adrian Bunk has been maintaining > the 2.6.16.x kernel tree and will continue to maintain it for a bit. > Is it feasible to backport vs.2.2 branch back to that stable tree? sure, but that's definitely something I won't spend time on, unless it is well payed ... best, Herbert > - Adam