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 flowed into your tree
>> when the
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 19:58, David S. Miller wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:29:35 -0500
>
>Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The problem is people don't test until 2.6.whatever-final goes out.
>Nothing will change that.
Except more people who think like me. I usually enjoy playing th
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 17:23, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Then your above becomes:
> 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
> 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
>
> And then that doesn't confuse end users either.
>
Speaking as an "ordinary" end user (there's nothing ordinary about me) I think
the idea of even/odd re
On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So what was broken with the 2.6.8.1 type of 'hotfix kernel' release ?
>
> That's an alternative, of course.
>
> But that _is_ a branch, and does need active forward- and (mainly)
> backward-porting work
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 think that the even
number releases will take lon
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:20:49PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > So what was broken with the 2.6.8.1 type of 'hotfix kernel' release ?
>
> That's an alternative, of course.
>
> But that _is_ a branch, and does need active forward- and (mainly)
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2005-03-02T14:21:38, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We'd still do the -rcX candidates as we go along in either case, so as a
> > user you wouldn't even _need_ to know, but the numbering would be a rough
> > guide to intentions.
> I actually second Matt's request; -RCs à la 2.4.
>
> Then your above becomes:
> 2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
> 2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
>
> And then that doesn't confuse end users either.
I'll jump in and third this. It looks the "honest" way. I know Linus is
always talking about "open sour
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, 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 reso
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO too confusing.
2.6.even: bugfixes only
2.6.odd: bugfixes and features.
That doesn't even confuse me!
I actually second Matt's request; -RCs à la 2.4.
Then your above becomes:
2.6.x-rc: bugfixes only
2.6.x-pre: bugfixes and features
And
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 such).
>
IMO too confusing.
And it exacerbates an on-going issue: we are moving away from "release
early, release often", as this proposal just pushes the list of pending
stuff back even further.
Developers right now are sitting on big piles, and pushing that back
even further means every odd release m
Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So what was broken with the 2.6.8.1 type of 'hotfix kernel' release ?
That's an alternative, of course.
But that _is_ a branch, and does need active forward- and (mainly)
backward-porting work.
There's nothing wrong with it per-se, but it becomes a "stab
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:58:30PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> The problem is people don't test until 2.6.whatever-final goes out.
> Nothing will change that.
>
> And the day Linus releases we always get a pile of "missing MODULE_EXPORT()"
> type bug reports that are one liner fixes. Th
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 flowed into your tree when they seemed sane.
Actually, the breakage I was talking about
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:58:30 -0800), "David S.
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> All this "I have to hold onto my backlog longer, WAHHH!" arguments are bogus
> IMHO. We're using a week of quiescence to fix the tree for users so they
> are happy whilst we work on
Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But more recently I have discovered that quite a few key developers
> develop against Linus' kernel and submit patches directly to him,
> apparently bypassing Andrew. This leads to them holding back patches
> when a release is approaching, rather than send
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 ALSA, USB, parpor
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
> become more
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
30? Try 310 changesets, in my netdev-2.6 pending queue.
Note that I don't think a 2.6. would have problems with things like
driver updates.
Nah, I agree with DaveJ -- there are definitely "dev" portions when it
comes to driver updates
I'm only emailing to the list, feel free to keep my in CC (this way I'll
know what part of the thread was directed towards me)
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
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:00:46PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > 30? Try 310 changesets, in my netdev-2.6 pending queue.
>
> Note that I don't think a 2.6. would have problems with things like
> driver updates.
>
> This was somewhat brought on
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:44:58PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > I think a better approach, and one which is already working out well in
> > practice, is to put "more intrusive" features into -mm first, and only
> > migrate them into 2.6.x when they have 'stabilized'.
>
> That wouldn't ch
Andrew Morton wrote:
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMO too confusing.
2.6.even: bugfixes only
2.6.odd: bugfixes and features.
That doesn't even confuse me!
Developers right now are sitting on big piles, and pushing that back
even further means every odd release means you are creating a
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IMO too confusing.
>
2.6.even: bugfixes only
2.6.odd: bugfixes and features.
That doesn't even confuse me!
> Developers right now are sitting on big piles, and pushing that back
> even further means every odd release means you are creating a
> 2.4.x/2
If I understand you correctly, what you are effectively saying is that
people don't test the -rc releases enough, so you are going to start
giving these releases a more formal name: 2.6.ODD.
That will encourage more people to test them, so that when you do a
real release (now called 2.6.EVEN inst
Other ideas ...
I maintain my netdev-2.6 queue by creating a ton of "subject-specific"
repositories locally,
8139cp/ bonding/ ieee80211/mips/ sis900/typhoon/
8139too/e1000/ixgb/ misc/ skge/ viro-iomap/
8139too-2/ ham/ janitor/ mv643xx/ sk_mca/
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
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 think that the even
number re
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>
> If the users wouldn't even have to know, why do it? Who will benefit
> from this, then?
They don't _have_ to know. But both users and developers can take
advantage of this to time their patches.
> I think a better approach, and one which is al
Russell King wrote:
This sounds good, until you realise that some of us have been sitting
on about 30 patches for at least the last month, because we where
following your guidelines about the -rc's. Things like adding support
for new ARM machines and other devices, dynamic tick support for ARM,
et
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 12:34:59AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:04:01PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > /me kills my patchbomb script for now
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > - 2.6.: even at all levels, aim for having had m
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> 30? Try 310 changesets, in my netdev-2.6 pending queue.
Note that I don't think a 2.6. would have problems with things like
driver updates.
This was somewhat brought on (at least for me, dunno about Davem) by
things like 4-level page tables etc stu
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 that we c
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 think that the even
Hi Greg,
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 03:04:01PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> /me kills my patchbomb script for now
>
> 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
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:06:34PM +, Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, 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.: eve
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 14:21, 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 that we could adopt t
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:58:46PM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree 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 -
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
IMHO.
However, I have a comment :
> - 2.6.: still a stabl
Andrew Morton wrote:
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The reason I put a shorter timeframe on the "all-even" kernel is because I
don't want developers to be too itchy and sitting on stuff for too long if
they did something slightly bigger.
If they're feeling itchy they should dig in and h
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 14:21 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It seems like a sensible approach, and it's not like the 2.4.x vs 2.5.x
> kind of even/odd thing didn't _work_, the problems really were an issue of
> too big granularity making it hard for user and developers alike. So I see
> this as a tw
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:21:38PM -0800, 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
/me kills my patchbomb script for now
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 stabl
On 2005-03-02T14:21:38, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We'd still do the -rcX candidates as we go along in either case, so as a
> user you wouldn't even _need_ to know, but the numbering would be a rough
> guide to intentions. Ie I'd expect that distributions would always try to
>
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The reason I put a shorter timeframe on the "all-even" kernel is because I
> don't want developers to be too itchy and sitting on stuff for too long if
> they did something slightly bigger.
If they're feeling itchy they should dig in and help fix the b
__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 that the even
number releases will take longer
but it's worth the
301 - 346 of 346 matches
Mail list logo
