[LARTC] Opinions about pom/patches [was: iptables 1.3.7, kernel 2.6.19, ROUTE and Layer7 issues]

[Andrew Beverley]

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 03:58 +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Andrew Beverley wrote:
> > I would also like to see as many of the POM included in the stable
> > kernel. It's a bit of a headache to patch in what I want each time I
> > update the kernel, and on a fresh system I have to install CURL just to
> > update POM just to add connlimit to the kernel...
> 
> IMHO, patching kernels to add some certain shiny-feature(TM) is
> generally a bad idea if you don't know how the patch internally works or
> if you can't directly get support from the author of such patch.

Yes, agreed. I was more thinking of those that (look like) they have
been stable for a few years.

> Anyway, if you think that some certain patch is stable enough to push it
> forward to mainline, encourage the author to push it forward. Probably
> there is a reason why he decided not to do that.

Okay, I've emailed the author (of connlimit) but not received a reply. I
did ask him a while ago on the same subject but didn't really get a
reason as to why it is not. Anybody have any ideas?

In this case can *I* push it forward to the stable kernel?

Regards,

Andy Beverley