[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel
    On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 21:52 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
    > * Matthias Andree:
    > > Basically, no-one should have permission to touch any core parts, except
    > > for fixes, until 2.7. Yes, that means going back to older models. Yes,
    > > that means that the discussions will start all over. And yes, that means
    > > that the cool stuff has to wait. Solution: release more often.
    > Would this alone change much? I think what we really want is that our
    > favorite branch (whatever it is) gets critical fixes forever (well,
    > maybe one or two years, but this is forever). This is a bit
    > unrealistic because everyone has a slightly different branchpoint.
    > Releasing more often doesn't change that, really.

    Maybe that is what is needed. A branch that all can use. Have every 5
    or so 2.6.x become a "stable" branch. Where distributions and users can
    work together on keeping it stable. The rules to modifying such a
    branch would pretty much stay with what it already takes to modify the
    current 2.6.x.y branch. If you want a feature, you must either take the
    latest "unstable" 2.6.x branch or wait for the next "stable" 2.6.x
    branch to merge.

    Now who should chose which version the "stable" branch should be? Well,
    we could just say ever 5 branches will become one, or if we have a
    "F*cked up" branch (really bad bug made it in), then we can skip it and
    go to the 6th to branch.

    Perhaps, we could start out having Greg and Chris just concentrate on
    every fifth branch instead of every one, and that way the stability will
    last much longer. Again, if you want the latest functionality, you go
    with the latest "unstable" release, or wait for the next stable. Since
    these releases come out about every month or two, waiting 5 releases
    will last for almost a year.

    For this to work, the normal releases would just continue like normal.
    And just the marked branch will become stable. This may be similar to
    what Linus formally proposed. Where he had every odd revision be
    unstable, and every even stable. What I'm suggesting would not make the
    stable branch stable by what goes into it. It's just that those are the
    branches that would have the .y version. And then we could ignore the
    other branches instead.

    This idea combines pretty much the idea of the 2.7 with the current
    2.6.x.y. Actually it is more like the 2.7 approach, but it's hidden :-)
    The problem with 2.7 is that nobody tests it, and it takes too long to
    go from 2.6 to 2.8. My method here hides that fact. You just basically
    say "here's the stable version" and let it fork. Continue on with the
    2.6.x and when you think too many people are using the last stable
    version, and are not testing the current branch, just release the new
    "stable", and pull everyone back in.

    -- Steve

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-05 22:24    [W:0.026 / U:98.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site