Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 9 Nov 2003 19:50:00 GMT | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: Some thoughts about stable kernel development |
| |
Hi Linus,
[Off-list]
Quote from Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>: > Such a scenario is real and that way we might > end up with official kernel being unusable for any Internet-connected > tasks for weeks.
This does highlight a real issue - I am concerned by the number of posts on sites like lwn.net saying things like, "Oh, I'm using 2.6 as my standard kernel now", when it is clear that a lot of those users simply do not understand the issues.
> > Here is what I propose: > As all of you know, the development cycle can be shortened by using > two separate trees for a stable kernel line. > > Say, we're now at 2.4.23-rc1 stage. This "rc" kernel would also be > known as 2.4.24-pre1. The maintainer would apply "rc"-class fixes to > both kernels, and other patches (which can't go to "rc" kernel) would > be applied to 2.4.24-pre1 only. > > After 2.4.23-rcX becomes final 2.4.23, the 2.4.24-preX would become > 2.4.24-rc1 and would be a base for 2.4.25-pre1. > > This way: > - there would be no time when patches aren't accepted > - the development cycle would be shorter. In fact it would be much > less important as there would always be an up-to-date stable version. > - we would avoid a mess of having two separate trees, with different > fixes going in and out. > - the amount of added maintainer's work is minimal, especially if patch > authors specify which tree they want it to go in (i.e. even a small > trivial patch would be applied to "pre" only if requested by the > author). > - the 2.X.Y-pre* patch would always be based on latest 2.X.Y-1-rc or > final kernel. > - as an option, we could go from absolute to incremental -pre and -rc > patches: i.e. rc2 would be based on rc1 and pre2 on pre1. It would be > easier for both disks and people (no need to patch -R). > > Of course, I know 2.4-ac patches maintained by Alan Cox fulfilled > some (most?) of these points, even if it wasn't their primary function. > > This mail isn't about criticizing anyone nor anything, and is not only > related to 2.4 kernel - I just try to make the development process of > stable kernel lines a little better. > > Comments? > -- > Krzysztof Halasa, B*FH > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |