[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectNote on Linux 3.0 and the 3.1 merge window
    As everybody knows by now, not only did I do an -rc7 last week instead
    of releasing 3.0 (due to some worries about the RCU code), but I ended
    up also not doing the 3.0 on Monday because of a pathname lookup bug
    and then some _more_ RCU issues.

    Anyway, those should all be resolved and the fixes merged now, and I'm
    not really all that nervous about the pathname lookup issue - I think
    that got nailed, and the patch for that was literally just moving a
    single line (and adding a comment).

    The RCU issues worries me a bit, but everything says it's all good,
    and the biggest issues were with the new RCU_BOOST feature that really
    neither defaults to on, nor is suggested right now. So I think we're
    ok, and I'm planning on doing 3.0 tomorrow.

    That said, I do have one observation, and two requests:

    The observation: with the upcoming version number change, the official
    'git' repository is now (and has been for a week, but people probably
    didn't notice) just


    ie the "-2.6" thing is gone. However, the old name continues to work,
    just so that nothing breaks. You don't need to really change anything,
    but I thought I'd just point it out.

    The two requests are pretty simple:

    - Please do spend the time doing some last-minute checking of the
    current git tree. The 3.0 release hasn't really had a lot of
    fundamental changes, and the pathname bug Hugh found wasn't even a
    regression - it's been there a while and was in no way a 3.0 thing. So
    I don't really expect any huge issues, but just for psychological
    reasons it would be nice to not have even a whiff of the traditional
    ".0 problems" .

    - Because the 3.0 release ends up being so delayed from my original
    plan, that is now pushing the merge window solidly into my summer
    vacation. Originally, I'd have vacationed after -rc1. With the extra
    week, the merge window pushed a couple of days into my vacation - not
    enough to worry about. And now, it's solidly "the second week of the
    merge window, Linus plans to spend much of the week under water". So
    please try to send your merge window pull requests *early*.

    So that second request is basically aiming to not have to extend the
    merge window. I won't have WiFi under water, and the computer I will
    have there have won't be doing git merges. But if the load is light on
    the second week, I may be able to keep up despite being on vacation.
    Thanks to Intel, I will at least have a very capable laptop that can
    compile kernels in minutes rather than hours, and where
    'allyesconfig's are actually reasonable targets for me.

    If I end up not being able to do a good job while on vacation, I'll
    obviously have to extend the merge window, but I'm basically hoping
    that we simply won't need to go there. I just need some help from you
    guys for that to work.


     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-21 03:41    [W:0.025 / U:3.724 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site