Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:53:11 -0800 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version. |
| |
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:42:58 -0800 Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Jesper Juhl wrote: > > On 10/11/06, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote: > >> Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > [...] > >> > There are bugfixes which are too big for stable or -rc releases, > >> that are > >> > queued for 2.6.20. "Bugfix only" is a relative statement. Do you > >> include, > >> > new hardware support, new security api's, performance fixes. It > >> gets to > >> > be real hard to decide, because these are the changes that often cause > >> > regressions; often one major bug fix causes two minor bugs. > >> > >> That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across; the 2.6 dev model > >> tries to > >> be two cycles in one, dev and stable, which yields an awkward catch22 > >> situation. > >> > >> The only sane way forward in such a situation is to realize the > >> mistake and > >> return to the focused dev-only / stable-only model. > >> > >> This would probably involve pushing the current 2.6 kernel into 2.8 and > >> starting 2.9 as a dev-cycle only, once 2.8 has structurally stabilized. > >> > > > > That was not what I was arguing for in the initial mail at all. > > I think the 2.6 model works very well in general. All I was pushing > > for was a single cycle focused mainly on bug fixes once in a while. > > > I like the current model fine. From a developer point of view:
I don't think that it's great, but having even/odd stable/development is even worse.
But I agree with Jesper and Andrew's comments in general, that we do have stability problems and we have a lack of people who are working on bugs.
> * More branches means having to fix and retest a bug more places. > Workload goes up geometrically with number of versions. > So most developers end up ignoring fixing more than 2 versions; > anything more than -current and -stable are ignored. > * Holding off the tide of changes doesn't work. It just leads to > massive integration headaches. > * Many bugs don't show up until kernel is run on wide range of hardware, > but kernel doesn't get exposed to wide range of hardware and > applications until after it is declared stable. It is a Catch-22. > The current stability range of > -subtree ... -mm ... 2.6.X ... 2.6.X.Y... 2.6.vendor > works well for most people. The people it doesn't work for are trying > to get something for nothing. They want stability and the latest kernel > at the same time. > > There are some things that do need working on: > * Old bugs die, the bugzilla database needs a 6mo prune out. > > * Bugzilla.kernel.org is underutilized and is only a small sample of the > real problems. Not sure if it is a training, user, behaviour issue or > just that bugzilla is crap.
Behavior, ease of use vs. email.
> * Vendor bugs (that could be fixed) aren't forwarded to lkml or bugzilla
ack
> * LKML is an overloaded communication channel, do we need: > linux-bugs@vger.kernel.org ?
Either that or lkml is/remains for bug reporting and we move development somewhere else. Or my [repeated] preference:
do development on specific mailing lists (although there would likely need to be a fallback list when it's not clear which mailing list should be used)
> * Developers can't get (or afford to buy) the new hardware that causes > a lot of the pain. Just look at the number of bug reports due to new > flavors of motherboards, chipsets, etc. I spent 3mo on a bug that took > one day to fix once I got the hardware.
Yep.
--- ~Randy - 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/
| |