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:0.088 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site