On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 08:23 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But look at how to solve it. The _logical_ solution is to have a third
> line of defense: we have the -mm trees (wild and wacky patches), and we
> have my tree (hopefully not wacky any more), and it would be good to have
> a third level tre
* Linus Torvalds ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> In fact, if somebody maintained that kind of tree, especially in BK, it
> would be trivial for me to just pull from it every once in a while (like
> ever _day_ if necessary). But for that to work, then that tre
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is
> > done today. It's sane, understandable and it works.
> No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4.x is a totally
> differen
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 08:23:39AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So what's the problem with this approach? It would seem to make everybody
> happy: it would reduce my load, it would give people the alternate "2.6.x
> base kernel plus fixes only" parallell track, and it would _not_ have the
> t
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 00:21 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:38:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > > I would not keep regular driver updates fr
Hi,
On 02 Mar 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Maybe I don't understand? Is someone expecting distro
> quality/stability from kernel.org kernels?
> I don't, but maybe I'm one of those minorities.
How do you expect a broad user base testing your kernels if "stable"
kernel.org kernels aren't to be
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Greg KH wrote:
> > Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't know what
> > it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type patches in the -ac and
> > as tree. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's a slippery slope down
> > when t
* Jeff Garzik ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> 1) There is no clear, CONSISTENT point where "bugfixes only" begins.
> Right now, it could be -rc2, -rc3, -rc4... who knows.
>
> We need to send a clear signal to users "this is when you can really
> start hammering it." A signal that does not change f
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 11:29 +0100, Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> A gentoo view: There are lots of patchsets floating around in the gentoo forum
> based on either vanilla or mm-kernel, but over the months something has
> changed: Previously most patchsets were based on mm, but now are based on
> vanilla.
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So the suggestion on the table would be to go back to even/odd, but do it
> at the "micro-level" of single releases, rather than make it a two- or
> three-year release cycle.
[WARNING: At this point I have pulled an all-nighter, f
Hi,
On 03 Mar 2005, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
[Why don't the rc's get the testing they need?]
> The first few -rc's was tested by the more conservative users, but then
> things broken on them, and they went "what the hell? Is this a -rc?",
> and got the currently standard "sorry for your issues
Jeff Garzik wrote:
If Linus/DaveM really don't like -pre/-rc naming, I think 2.6.x.y is
preferable to even/odd.
Just create a 2.6.X repo at each release. For bug fixes to 2.6.X,
commit to this repo, then pull into linux-2.6. For everything else,
pull straight into linux-2.6.
For what it's wor
* David S. Miller 2005-03-02 20:05
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:32:23 -0500
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I also note that part of the problem that motivates the even/odd thing
> > is a tacit acknowledgement that people only _really_ test the official
> > releases.
> >
> > Which IM
Matt Mackall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
This is an idea that has been brewing for some time: Andrew has mentioned
it a couple of times, I've talked to some people about it, and today Davem
sent a suggestion along similar lines to me for 2.6.12.
Namely
Ha - a nice big thread. Issues include trivial fixes, testing,
and API stability.
-
About trivial fixes:
davem: the day Linus releases we always get a pile of "missing MODULE_EXPORT()"
type bug reports that are one liner fixes.
davej: So what was broken with the 2.6.8.1 type of release
Christoph wrote in reply to Neil:
> The point is that it's happening anyway. See Andres' -as tree which
> is the basis for the Debian vendor kernel.
Interesting. We already have a pre-Linus tree, in Andrew's *-mm.
Currently, each distro adds its own set of patches, on top of some
version of a L
On 2005-03-02T15:23:49, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This could be improved: _All_ new features have to go through -mm first
> > for a period (of whatever length) / one cycle. 2.6.x only directly picks
> > up "obvious" bugfixes, and a select set of features which have ripened
> > in -mm.
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:59:18AM -0800, Matthew Frost wrote:
>
> OT, 3.0.0 is an even-numbered release, therefore stable. So what do you
> call the odd-numbered unstable series that produces it? ;)
3.-1.x
:)
--
Ryan Anderson
sometimes Pug Majere
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send th
Previously Jeff Garzik wrote:
> We need to send a clear signal to users "this is when you can really
> start hammering it." A signal that does not change from release to
> release. A signal that does not require intimate knowledge of the
> kernel devel process.
The problem I see with that is
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Rene Herman wrote:
Doing -pre and real -rc will get you more testers for -rc. Whether or
Add in the fourth level .k releases for real problematic bugs found
after release as you did with 2.6.8.1, and I believe things should work.
Precisely.
I assume that one of the main proble
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 22:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is
> > done today. It's sane, understandable and it works.
>
> No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4.
On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:46:22 -0500 Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If Linus/DaveM really don't like -pre/-rc naming, I think 2.6.x.y is
> > preferable to even/odd.
>
> All of these arguments are circular. If people think that even/od
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is
> > done today. It's sane, understandable and it works.
>
> No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4.x is a totally
>
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 11:29:07 +0100, Prakash Punnoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> And if you want bug reports, make it easier for the user. I know there is a
> txt file in the kernel src dir, but it would be better, if there would be a
> complete script which gets all possible need infos itsel
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > I think the .EVEN and .ODD proposal would work a lot better than -rc ever
> > would/could.
>
> ...until people find out the "secret" that .ODD is really beta. Then we are
> back where we started.
Ah, but you are assuming peop
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Previously Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I'd say that mainline kernel.org for the past couple of years has been a
> > technology, not a product.
>
> If you consider mainline a technology and distributions your main users,
> what is the use of a stable
Rather than mixing problem and solution, let me just define the two
problems in this thread:
1) There is no clear, CONSISTENT point where "bugfixes only" begins.
Right now, it could be -rc2, -rc3, -rc4... who knows.
We need to send a clear signal to users "this is when you can really
start ham
Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
I think the .EVEN and .ODD proposal would work a lot better than -rc ever
would/could.
...until people find out the "secret" that .ODD is really beta. Then we
are back where we started.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kern
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Russell Miller wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 19:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
That's the whole point here, at least to me. I want to have people test
things out, but it doesn't matter how many -rc kernels I'd do, it just
won't happen. It's not a "real release".
In contrast, maki
Linus Torvalds wrote:
In other words, we'd have an increasing level of instability with an odd
release number, depending on how long-term the instability is.
- 2.6.: even at all levels, aim for having had minimally intrusive
patches leading up to it (timeframe: a week or two)
with the odd num
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 19:37 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is
> > done today. It's sane, understandable and it works.
>
> No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:15:06AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We need to not only produce a useful kernel, but also package it in a
> > way that is useful to the direct consumers of the kernel: distros
> > [large and small] and power users.
>
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 02:15 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> If we were to get serious with maintenance of 2.6.x.y streams then that is
> a 100% productisation activity. It's a very useful activity, and there is
> demand for it.
Correct. That's what -ac and -as kernels try to achieve. Moving those
a
As far as I understand the numbering scheme, the 2.5 kernel leads to 2.6
series.
Why not just reactivate the 2.5 kernel (Starting with i.e. 2.5.112 which
will lead to 2.6.12)?
There will be no change visible to end-users and developers - IMO - are
more flexible in any case.
(I know I totally ign
Gene Heskett schrieb:
> On Wednesday 02 March 2005 20:15, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>>>I think this statement proves that the current development
>>>situation is working quite well. The nasty breakage and details
>>>got worked out in the -mm tree, and then flo
Previously Andrew Morton wrote:
> I'd say that mainline kernel.org for the past couple of years has been a
> technology, not a product.
If you consider mainline a technology and distributions your main users,
what is the use of a stable release every months or two months? No
distribution is going
Randy.Dunlap ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Maybe I don't understand? Is someone expecting distro
> quality/stability from kernel.org kernels?
> I don't, but maybe I'm one of those minorities.
There are few distributors who can sufficiently QA the kernel
they ship. I think only Redhat/Fedora, Novel
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We need to not only produce a useful kernel, but also package it in a
> way that is useful to the direct consumers of the kernel: distros
> [large and small] and power users.
This comes down to the question "what are we making"? Is it an end
product
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 10:51:13AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> it's actually not. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is magical in that you get
> actual support for it (in various degrees, depending on for what level
> you want to pay). That is what sets it appart, not the actual bits.
IMO the bits are
Rene Herman wrote:
Doing -pre and real -rc will get you more testers for -rc. Whether or
Add in the fourth level .k releases for real problematic bugs found
after release as you did with 2.6.8.1, and I believe things should work.
Precisely.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 01:42 -0800, Barry K. Nathan wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > even/odd means that certain releases (even ones) are more magical than
> > others. That's weird, since users aren't used to that sort of thing in
>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we want testing
sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versions.
Speaking, presumably, as one of those people you are talking about, no,
that is not correct.
Betw
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> even/odd means that certain releases (even ones) are more magical than
> others. That's weird, since users aren't used to that sort of thing in
^^^
> any other projec
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have all these problems precisely because _nobody_ is saying "I'm
only going to accept bug fixes". We _need_ some amount of release
engineering. Right now we basically have none.
Sorry Jeff, but that's crap. Go look at the commits
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
The pertinent question for a point release (2.6.X.Y) would simply be
"does a 2.6.11 user really need this fix?"
"need this fix bad enough now, or can it wait until 2.6.12?"
Like I previously said, I think we're doing a g
>
> Comments?
the problem is that this doesn't tackle some of the fundamentals...
yes you have a step in between for extra stabilisation. However during
that phase, the buildup of patch backlogs will keep going on, and the
next "unstable" release is all the more so, because of all the enormous
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We have all these problems precisely because _nobody_ is saying "I'm
> only going to accept bug fixes". We _need_ some amount of release
> engineering. Right now we basically have none.
Sorry Jeff, but that's crap. Go look at the commits list. Eve
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:27:42AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't know what
it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type patches in the -ac and
as tree. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's a slippery sl
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:37:44PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
[snip]
> > 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
> > 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
>
> And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we want testing
> sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versi
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The reasons -rcs are not as good as they could be is that they include
> more than just bug fixes.
I thought we'd been fairly good about that, actually. The -rc1's always
come too early for me (I usually wait for all the bk merges to happen).
But once
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:53:53AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> And sometimes, people really want those "big" fixes, and they switch to
> using the bk-usb patchset, or the bk-scsi patchset. That happens a lot
> for when distros work to stabilize their release kernels.
For those that have no intent
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:38:22AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The pertinent question for a point release (2.6.X.Y) would simply be
> "does a 2.6.11 user really need this fix?"
"need this fix bad enough now, or can it wait until 2.6.12?"
> >Like I previously said, I think we're doing a great job
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:27:42AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't know what
> >it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type patches in the -ac and
> >as tree. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's a slippery slope
--- Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> For a long time, I've been hoping/asking for a more frequent
> stable/unstable cycle, so clearly you can count my vote on this one
> (eventhough it might count for close to zero). This is a very good step
> towards a better stability
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 03:28:22AM -0500, Jes Sorensen wrote:
>
> Greg> So, while I like the _idea_ of the 2.6.x.y type releases, having
> Greg> those releases contain anything but a handful of patches will
> Greg> quickly get quite messy.
>
> Wouldn't this actually happen automatically simply by
Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The thing is, I _do_ believe the current setup is working reasonably well.
But I also do know that some people (a fairly small group, but anyway)
seem to want an extra level of stability - although those people seem
> "Greg" == Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Greg> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Users have been clamoring for a stable release branch in any case,
>> as you see from comments about Alan's -ac and an LKML user's -as
>> kernels.
Greg> Sure they've been aski
Greg KH wrote:
Sure they've been asking for it, but I think they really don't know what
it entails. Look at all of the "non-stable" type patches in the -ac and
as tree. There's a lot of stuff in there. It's a slippery slope down
when trying to say, "I'm only going to accept bug fixes."
We have
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The thing is, I _do_ believe the current setup is working reasonably well.
> But I also do know that some people (a fairly small group, but anyway)
> seem to want an extra level of stability - although those people seem to
> not
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 02:52:21AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 2.6.x.y has a very real engineering benefit: it becomes a stable
> release branch. That will encourage even more users to test it, over
> and above a simple release naming change.
>
> Users have been clamoring for a stable release
David S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:46:22 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If Linus/DaveM really don't like -pre/-rc naming, I think 2.6.x.y is
preferable to even/odd.
All of these arguments are circular. If people think that even/odd
will devalue odd releases, guess what
> And the reason it does _not_ work is that all the people we
> want testing sure as _hell_ won't be testing -rc versions.
At least they still test "real" releases..
So instead of making sure rc is really "release-candidate", we want to trick
people to test -pre as "real release", soon people wi
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
> > I do understand what you are trying to achieve here, people don't really
> > test the -rc releases as much as a "real" 2.6.11 release. Getting a
> > week of testing and bugfix only type patches
100% agree with you, Jeff. That's what I wrote in another mail.
A real -rc should have only a handful of patches. And even more
importantly, the final release MUST be EXACTLY the lastest -rc,
without any new surprize.
Willy
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:16:19PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The rea
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 21:08:07 -0800
Russell Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How do you know that they won't stop the announcements if this change is made?
Nobody knows such things for sure, let's test it and find out :-)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:38:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > I would not keep regular driver updates from a 2.6. thing.
> >
> > Then the notion of
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:38:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > I would not keep regular driver updates from a 2.6. thing.
> >
> > Then the notion of it being stable i
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:53:36 MST, "Jeff V. Merkey" said:
> __Stable__ would be a good thing. The entire 2.6 development has been a
> disaster from
> a stability viewpoint. I have to maintain a huge tree of patches in
> order to ship appliance
> builds due to the lack of stability for 2.6. I think
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 20:58, David S. Miller wrote:
> That's one of the major things the -rc's don't get. Maybe it gets
> a reference in lwn.net's weekly kernel article, but mostly kernel
> geeks read those and that's not who we want testing -rc's (such
> geeks already are doing so).
>
How d
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 19:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That's the whole point here, at least to me. I want to have people test
> things out, but it doesn't matter how many -rc kernels I'd do, it just
> won't happen. It's not a "real release".
>
> In contrast, making it a real release, and makin
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:32:23 EST, Jeff Garzik said:
> I also note that part of the problem that motivates the even/odd thing
> is a tacit acknowledgement that people only _really_ test the official
> releases.
>
> Which IMHO backs up my opinion that we simply need more frequent releases.
Or mor
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 23:46:22 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If Linus/DaveM really don't like -pre/-rc naming, I think 2.6.x.y is
> preferable to even/odd.
All of these arguments are circular. If people think that even/odd
will devalue odd releases, guess what 2.6.x.y will do? B
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 22:17, Andrew Morton wrote:
>Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ditto for the 1394 fixes that have been upstream for at
>> least a month, maybe more.
>
>-mm always holds the latest 1394 tree. So you can run -mm, or just
> snarf bk-ieee1394.patch from the broken-
If Linus/DaveM really don't like -pre/-rc naming, I think 2.6.x.y is
preferable to even/odd.
Just create a 2.6.X repo at each release. For bug fixes to 2.6.X,
commit to this repo, then pull into linux-2.6. For everything else,
pull straight into linux-2.6.
The linux-2.6 repo would be upstrea
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > I would not keep regular driver updates from a 2.6. thing.
>
> Then the notion of it being stable is bogus, given how many regressions
> the last few kernels have brought in drivers.
David S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:40:57 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
People don't test 2.6-rc releases because they know they are not
"release candidate, with only bug fixes" releases, which is how the rest
of the world interprets the phrase.
That's not %100 true. N
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> - 2.6.: even at all levels, aim for having had minimally intrusive
>patches leading up to it (timeframe: a week or two)
>
> with the odd numbers going like:
>
> - 2.6.: still a stable kernel, but accept bigger changes leading
Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:10:47PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> >For it to truly be a stable kernel, the only patches I'd expect to
> >drivers would be ones fixing blindingly obvious bugs. No cleanups.
> >No new functionality. I'd even question new hardware support if it
> >wa
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 21:32:23 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also note that part of the problem that motivates the even/odd thing
> is a tacit acknowledgement that people only _really_ test the official
> releases.
>
> Which IMHO backs up my opinion that we simply need more fre
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:37:44 -0800 (PST)), Linus
Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> In contrast, making it a real release, and making it clear that it's a
> release in its own right, might actually get people to use it.
>
> Might. Maybe.
I believe people soon
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 22:40:57 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> People don't test 2.6-rc releases because they know they are not
> "release candidate, with only bug fixes" releases, which is how the rest
> of the world interprets the phrase.
That's not %100 true. No matter what -rc
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 14:21:38 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Comments?
>
Just rename:
2..-rcX -> 2..y-preX
2.. -> 2..y-rcX
2.. -> 2..y
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:10:47PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> >For it to truly be a stable kernel, the only patches I'd expect to
> >drivers would be ones fixing blindingly obvious bugs. No cleanups.
> >No new functionality. I'd even question new hardware support if it
> >wasn't just a PCI I
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> This is an idea that has been brewing for some time: Andrew has mentioned
> it a couple of times, I've talked to some people about it, and today Davem
> sent a suggestion along similar lines to me for 2.6.12.
>
> Namely tha
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The problem with major development trees like 2.4.x vs 2.5.x was that the
> release cycles were too long, and that people hated the back- and
> forward-porting. That said, it did serve a purpose - people kind of knew
> where they
Hi.
My first response is: this is a recipe for great confusion among users.
I'd far rather see things only make it into your tree when they've been
thoroughly tested (in -mm and prior to that). Following that strategy,
your tree could always be relied upon to be stable and -rcs would only
needed
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is
done today. It's sane, understandable and it works.
No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4.x is a totally
different animal. Namely it doesn't have
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> If we want a calming period, we need to do development like 2.4.x is
> done today. It's sane, understandable and it works.
No. It's insane, and the only reason it works is that 2.4.x is a totally
different animal. Namely it doesn't have the kind of a
On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A Linus based odd number
> might be closer to that if we hope on people unwittingly running them.
^^^
I think this is a very unhelpful attitude
Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I would not keep regular driver updates from a 2.6. thing.
Then the notion of it being stable is bogus, given how many regressions
the last few kernels have brought in drivers. Moving from 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10
broke
Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ditto for the 1394 fixes that have been upstream for at
> least a month, maybe more.
-mm always holds the latest 1394 tree. So you can run -mm, or just snarf
bk-ieee1394.patch from the broken-out directory.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:59:20PM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
> I think there is a case for the "community" providing the most
> "stable" kernel that it (reasonably) can without depending on
> "distributions" to do that.
The point is that it's happening anyway. See Andres' -as tree which
is the bas
Jeff Garzik wrote:
I also note that part of the problem that motivates the even/odd thing
is a tacit acknowledgement that people only _really_ test the official
releases.
Which IMHO backs up my opinion that we simply need more frequent releases.
That doesn't really help in my opinion. We need t
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Only davem, AFAIK. All the other trees get auto-sucked into -mm for
> > testing.
>
> Ok, I got the feeling it was more wide spread than that, but I
> apparently misread the signs (people mentioning
Neil Brown wrote:
On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only davem, AFAIK. All the other trees get auto-sucked into -mm for
testing.
Ok, I got the feeling it was more wide spread than that, but I
apparently misread the signs (people mentioning that had 'patches
queued for Linus' and suc
I also note that part of the problem that motivates the even/odd thing
is a tacit acknowledgement that people only _really_ test the official
releases.
Which IMHO backs up my opinion that we simply need more frequent releases.
Part of this is a scalability problem. Linux probably has more chang
The key thing I look at is total cycle time, from any particular point
in the cycle, to when that same point comes around again.
In 2.4 and before, the cycle time was a long time, I hear tell.
Perhaps, at some points, things were sufficiently chaotic that it
was difficult to discern any particula
Zwane Mwaikambo wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
__Stable__ would be a good thing. The entire 2.6 development has been a
disaster from a stability viewpoint. I have to maintain a huge tree of
patches in order to ship appliance builds due to the lack of stability
for 2.6. I thi
* Dave Jones ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So what was broken with the 2.6.8.1 type of 'hotfix kernel' release ?
I agree, I think that's useful and needed. It's possible to get the
fixes committed to an effective branch in bk and pull that back into
mainline. So at each new release the last relea
David S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:29:35 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the time between big merges increases, as with this proposal, then
the distance between local dev trees and linux-2.6 increases.
With that distance, breakages like the 64-bit resource struct stuff
201 - 300 of 346 matches
Mail list logo
