lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:4.414 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site