Since I am only responding to you and not to a list where others
interested in the conversation that might not have read it are
involved, I will top post as opposed to posting inline, this ensures
brevity in my response as well as not requiring you to search out my
OK. since memtest has traditionally always been a separate binary, not
a part of the kernel. It would seem to me that if it is indeed now a
part of the kernel, which I doubt, then it may well be an experimental
feature requiring further testing before being released into the wild.
there we have it.
Robert G. Moonen
On 12/1/11, Dmitry Smirnov <email@example.com> wrote:
> I would like to reopen this discussion since there are some unanswered
> Are we censoring certain Linux Kernel features because "they are not good
> If so,
> * How do we decide what experimental feature is OK?
> (For example we have btrfs along with many other things, long before they
> become useful)
> * What's the decision criteria? It appears to me that particularly
> MEMTEST was refused purely because of prejudice rather than risk assessment.
> It is probably obvious to everyone that MEMTEST is harmless.
> Then why not enable it without painful discussions?
> What's our reason/excuse? (I think arguments like "it is not good enough"
> won't be qualified as reasonable answer due to availability of many other
> experimental features.)
> If just few requests for a feature is not enough to convince that we need
> how many people should ask, exactly, in order to make the change?
> (If I shall I start gathering signatures for petition, how many do I need?
> Thank you.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Archive: CAOhUKb42iNZqmWTzhtVYW2uPEcr8=E_o=GkkesHmz_+jyiFXg email@example.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAOhUKb42iNZqmWTzhtVYW2uPEcr8=E_o=GkkesHmz_+jyiFXg firstname.lastname@example.org