My thoughts on the "new development model"(A bit late tho)

My thoughts on the "new development model"(A bit late tho)

[Espen Fjellvær Olsen]

This may come a bit late now, since the "new development model" was
put through late this summer.
But anyway i'm going to come with som thoughts about it.

I think that 2.6 should be frozen from now on, just security related
stuff should be merged.
This would strengthen Linux's reputation as a stable and secure
system, not a unstable and a system just used for fun.
A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
into it, and where people could begin to think new again.
New thoughts are good in all ways, it is for sure very much code in
the current kernels that should be revised, rewritten and maybe marked
as deprecated.

:)

-- 
Mvh / Best regards
Espen Fjellvær Olsen
espenfjo@gmail.com
Norway

My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Espen Fjellvær Olsen]

This may come a bit late now, since the "new development model" was
put through late this summer.
But anyway i'm going to come with som thoughts about it.

I think that 2.6 should be frozen from now on, just security related
stuff should be merged.
This would strengthen Linux's reputation as a stable and secure
system, not a unstable and a system just used for fun.
A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
into it, and where people could begin to think new again.
New thoughts are good in all ways, it is for sure very much code in
the current kernels that should be revised, rewritten and maybe marked
as deprecated.

:)

--
Mvh / Best regards
Espen Fjellvær Olsen
espenfjo@gmail.com
Norway

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Clemens Schwaighofer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/23/2004 06:52 AM, Espen Fjellvær Olsen wrote:

> A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
> into it, and where people could begin to think new again.
> New thoughts are good in all ways, it is for sure very much code in
> the current kernels that should be revised, rewritten and maybe marked
> as deprecated.

I absolutly agree. There is still too much experimental going on in a
stable series that goes to a .10 release ...

But well, 2.4 was usable after .10, so lets not rush to fast :)

lg, clemens
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBeYXQjBz/yQjBxz8RAkHWAKCFQv9/2i+0nrmKHiYnjNp5dVmUKACg4x/9
M82d/+D8TYb6XBKamu/kcGM=
=qbBB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 00:12, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
[...]
> But well, 2.4 was usable after .10, so lets not rush to fast :)

Especially 2.4.11

SCNR,
	Bernd
-- 
Firmix Software GmbH                   http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Clemens Schwaighofer]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/23/2004 09:55 PM, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 00:12, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote:
> [...]
> 
>>But well, 2.4 was usable after .10, so lets not rush to fast :)
> 
> 
> Especially 2.4.11

yup, that was the rocks :)

lg, clemens
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBexvAjBz/yQjBxz8RArc8AJ4yc9DUJlsU/RyDGKOLVAlFHxvrOwCZAe6R
tkBToFVDu8BC5FJPlIjhlSQ=
=y6Ys
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:52:50PM +0200, Espen Fjellv?r Olsen wrote:
> This may come a bit late now, since the "new development model" was
> put through late this summer.
> But anyway i'm going to come with som thoughts about it.
> I think that 2.6 should be frozen from now on, just security related
> stuff should be merged.
> This would strengthen Linux's reputation as a stable and secure
> system, not a unstable and a system just used for fun.
> A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
> into it, and where people could begin to think new again.
> New thoughts are good in all ways, it is for sure very much code in
> the current kernels that should be revised, rewritten and maybe marked
> as deprecated.
> :)

We should write code, not blow release nomenclature smoke.


-- wli

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Espen Fjellvær Olsen]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:45:40 -0700, William Lee Irwin III
<wli@holomorphy.com> wrote:
> 
> We should write code, not blow release nomenclature smoke.
> 
> 
> -- wli
> 

I'm sorry i cant contribute with any code, i'm not skilled enough to
do such a job, yet.
The only way i can contribute is to do testing, a release need
testing, testing and testing :)

-- 
Mvh / Best regards
Espen Fjellvær Olsen
espenfjo@gmail.com
Norway

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:45:40 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> We should write code, not blow release nomenclature smoke.

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:50:44AM +0200, Espen Fjellv?r Olsen wrote:
> I'm sorry i cant contribute with any code, i'm not skilled enough to
> do such a job, yet.
> The only way i can contribute is to do testing, a release need
> testing, testing and testing :)

Isn't this just what motivates what's in the next release? If the
patches weren't tested, why were they merged? Accidents can't be
anticipated. How long are you going to wait for one to happen?
Why expect one not to happen if you wait on the same code longer?


-- wli

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Lee Revell]

On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 00:50 +0200, Espen Fjellvær Olsen wrote: 
> I'm sorry i cant contribute with any code, i'm not skilled enough to
> do such a job, yet.
> The only way i can contribute is to do testing, a release need
> testing, testing and testing :)
> 

This is how testers become coders.  Eventually you will find a problem
and figure out the answer before anyone responds to your bug report ;-)

-- 
Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Willy Tarreau]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:52:50PM +0200, Espen Fjellv?r Olsen wrote:
> I think that 2.6 should be frozen from now on, just security related
> stuff should be merged.
> This would strengthen Linux's reputation as a stable and secure
> system, not a unstable and a system just used for fun.

Linux already got its reputation of a stable system from its production
kernels, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 which are largely used in sensible environments.
2.6 is stable enough for most desktop usage and for end-users distros to
ship it by default. This will encourage many more people to test it, send
reports back and finally stabilize it so that one day it can finally be
used in production environments. At first I was a bit angry that it had
been declared "stable" a bit too early, but now, judging by the amount of
people who use it only because their distros ship with it, I realise that
indeed, it should have been declared "stable" earlier so that all the bug
fixes you see now would be fixed by now.

> A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
> into it, and where people could begin to think new again.

This could be true if the release cycle was shorter. But once 2.7 comes
out, many developpers will only focus on their development and not on
stabilizing 2.6 as much as today.

Willy

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:52:50PM +0200, Espen Fjellv?r Olsen wrote:
>> I think that 2.6 should be frozen from now on, just security related
>> stuff should be merged.
>> This would strengthen Linux's reputation as a stable and secure
>> system, not a unstable and a system just used for fun.

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:57:03AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Linux already got its reputation of a stable system from its production
> kernels, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 which are largely used in sensible environments.
> 2.6 is stable enough for most desktop usage and for end-users distros to
> ship it by default. This will encourage many more people to test it, send
> reports back and finally stabilize it so that one day it can finally be
> used in production environments. At first I was a bit angry that it had
> been declared "stable" a bit too early, but now, judging by the amount of
> people who use it only because their distros ship with it, I realise that
> indeed, it should have been declared "stable" earlier so that all the bug
> fixes you see now would be fixed by now.

The freezes from kernels past led to gross redundancy. Distros all
froze at different points in time with numerous patches atop the
then-mainline release. The mainline freeze was meaningless because
the distros were all completely divorced from it, resulting in numerous
simultaneously frozen trees with no outlet for forward progress.


On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:52:50PM +0200, Espen Fjellv?r Olsen wrote:
>> A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
>> into it, and where people could begin to think new again.

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:57:03AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> This could be true if the release cycle was shorter. But once 2.7 comes
> out, many developpers will only focus on their development and not on
> stabilizing 2.6 as much as today.

We aren't just stabilizing 2.6. We're moving it forward. Part of moving
forward is preventing backportmania depravity. Backporting is the root
of all evil.


-- wli

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 17:09 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> Backporting is the root of all evil.

LOL.  This is very close to a favorite mantra of mine: Backwards
compatibility is the root of all evil.

Lee

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Bill Davidsen]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> We aren't just stabilizing 2.6. We're moving it forward. Part of moving
> forward is preventing backportmania depravity. Backporting is the root
> of all evil.

Damn! And I thought it was closed source software...

Let me just put forward my single criterion for stable vs. not, and that 
is that if I am running a stable kernel and upgrade to a new version to 
gain a feature or security fix my existing programs don't break. That 
means to me that if Reiser4 goes in, Reiser3 doesn't exit. If something 
more please to theoretical cryptographers than cryptoloop comes out, 
cryptoloop doesn't go away. Etc, these are just examples.

It doesn't bother me (and I believe most users of kernel.org releases) 
when a new features comes in, until it breaks something even though I 
don't use the new feature. It's when there is an incompatible change, 
like the rewrite of modules, that I think a development kernel is needed.

I don't see the need for a development kernel, and it is desirable to be 
able to run kernel.org kernels. I would like to hope that other people 
agree that stable need not mean static, as long as changes don't 
deliberately break existing apps.

I note that BSD has another serious fork and that people are actually 
moving to Linux after installing SP2 and finding it disfunctional with 
non-MS software. Nice to see people looking at Linux as the stable 
choice. I would like to hope that continues.

-- 
    -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[William Lee Irwin III]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> We aren't just stabilizing 2.6. We're moving it forward. Part of moving
>> forward is preventing backportmania depravity. Backporting is the root
>> of all evil.

On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:15:05PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Damn! And I thought it was closed source software...
> Let me just put forward my single criterion for stable vs. not, and that 
> is that if I am running a stable kernel and upgrade to a new version to 
> gain a feature or security fix my existing programs don't break. That 
> means to me that if Reiser4 goes in, Reiser3 doesn't exit. If something 
> more please to theoretical cryptographers than cryptoloop comes out, 
> cryptoloop doesn't go away. Etc, these are just examples.

I don't see the kind of thing you're saying should not happen happening.
This does not seem pertinent to -rc vs. other names.


On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:15:05PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> It doesn't bother me (and I believe most users of kernel.org releases) 
> when a new features comes in, until it breaks something even though I 
> don't use the new feature. It's when there is an incompatible change, 
> like the rewrite of modules, that I think a development kernel is needed.

I don't have much of anything to say about modules apart from
"I didn't do it".


On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:15:05PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I don't see the need for a development kernel, and it is desirable to be 
> able to run kernel.org kernels. I would like to hope that other people 
> agree that stable need not mean static, as long as changes don't 
> deliberately break existing apps.

If we're chucking out crap, there's generally a massive amount of
notice. The only time I've ever been personally burned is kernel rarpd
removal, which did give a major release's worth of notice, but was a
case where I did not find the userspace replacement satisfactory. I'm
still not entirely happy with the userspace rarpd, but get by as it's
been improved since the initial changeover. I suspect there will be
some similar cases coming involving early userspace and so on where
bootloader size limitations vs. new methods burn me regardless of notice.


On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:15:05PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I note that BSD has another serious fork and that people are actually 
> moving to Linux after installing SP2 and finding it disfunctional with 
> non-MS software. Nice to see people looking at Linux as the stable 
> choice. I would like to hope that continues.

This doesn't really mean much to me. I'm more specifically concerned
with Linux' internals as opposed to e.g. mass-market phenomena or the
various trends going on amongst end users.


-- wli

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

Mon, 25 Oct 2004 @ 17:15 -0400, Bill Davidsen said:

> I note that BSD has another serious fork 

Which one is that?

> and that people are actually moving to Linux after installing SP2 and 
> finding it disfunctional with non-MS software.                        

SP2?


-- 
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["Meddle not in the affairs of Wizards, for
thou art crunchy, and taste good with ketchup." -- unknown]

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Mark Nipper]

On 26 Oct 2004, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > I note that BSD has another serious fork 

	I assume he means DragonFly BSD.  Looks promising so far.
I still prefer Linux for most things personally though.  :)

http://www.dragonflybsd.org/

-- 
Mark Nipper                                                e-contacts:
4475 Carter Creek Parkway                           nipsy@bitgnome.net
Apartment 724                               http://nipsy.bitgnome.net/
Bryan, Texas, 77802-4481           AIM/Yahoo: texasnipsy ICQ: 66971617
(979)575-3193                                      MSN: nipsy@tamu.edu

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GG/IT d- s++:+ a- C++$ UBL++++$ P--->+++ L+++$ !E---
W++(--) N+ o K++ w(---) O++ M V(--) PS+++(+) PE(--)
Y+ PGP t+ 5 X R tv b+++@ DI+(++) D+ G e h r++ y+(**)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

---begin random quote of the moment---
"I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a
butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly dreaming I am a man."
 -- Chang Tzu
----end random quote of the moment----

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:57:03AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:52:50PM +0200, Espen Fjellv?r Olsen wrote:
>...
> > A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
> > into it, and where people could begin to think new again.
> 
> This could be true if the release cycle was shorter. But once 2.7 comes
> out, many developpers will only focus on their development and not on
> stabilizing 2.6 as much as today.

2.6.9 -> 2.6.10-rc1:
- 4 days
- > 15 MB patches

It's a bit optimistic to call this amount of change "stabilizing".

2.6 is corrently more a development kernel than a stable kernel.

The last bug I observed personally was the problem with suspending when 
using CONFIG_REGPARM=y together with Roland's waitid patch which was 
added in 2.6.9-rc2. If I'd used 2.6.9 with the same .config as 2.6.8.1, 
this was simple one more bug...

IMHO Andrew+Linus should open a short-living 2.7 tree soon and Andrew 
(or someone else) should maintain a 2.6 tree with less changes (like 
Marcelo did and does with 2.4).

> Willy

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:40:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:57:03AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:52:50PM +0200, Espen Fjellv?r Olsen wrote:
> >...
> > > A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
> > > into it, and where people could begin to think new again.
> > 
> > This could be true if the release cycle was shorter. But once 2.7 comes
> > out, many developpers will only focus on their development and not on
> > stabilizing 2.6 as much as today.
> 
> 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10-rc1:
> - 4 days
> - > 15 MB patches
> 
> It's a bit optimistic to call this amount of change "stabilizing".
> 
> 2.6 is corrently more a development kernel than a stable kernel.
> 
> The last bug I observed personally was the problem with suspending when 
> using CONFIG_REGPARM=y together with Roland's waitid patch which was 
> added in 2.6.9-rc2. If I'd used 2.6.9 with the same .config as 2.6.8.1, 
> this was simple one more bug...
> 
> IMHO Andrew+Linus should open a short-living 2.7 tree soon and Andrew 
> (or someone else) should maintain a 2.6 tree with less changes (like 
> Marcelo did and does with 2.4).

I don't ever want to plug anything I've written, but please see the
current issue of Linux Journal with an article explaining how this is
all working, why we are doing this, and how the hell we can keep sane
this way.  I've also got slides on my website from the talk I've given
about this topic at OLS, OSCON, and SUCON about this topic.

In about a month or so, I'll be able to put the linux journal article up
on the web for everyone to see, need to let the publication restriction
expire first...

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Adrian Bunk]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 10:04:39PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:40:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 12:57:03AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:52:50PM +0200, Espen Fjellv?r Olsen wrote:
> > >...
> > > > A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
> > > > into it, and where people could begin to think new again.
> > > 
> > > This could be true if the release cycle was shorter. But once 2.7 comes
> > > out, many developpers will only focus on their development and not on
> > > stabilizing 2.6 as much as today.
> > 
> > 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10-rc1:
> > - 4 days
> > - > 15 MB patches
> > 
> > It's a bit optimistic to call this amount of change "stabilizing".
> > 
> > 2.6 is corrently more a development kernel than a stable kernel.
> > 
> > The last bug I observed personally was the problem with suspending when 
> > using CONFIG_REGPARM=y together with Roland's waitid patch which was 
> > added in 2.6.9-rc2. If I'd used 2.6.9 with the same .config as 2.6.8.1, 
> > this was simple one more bug...
> > 
> > IMHO Andrew+Linus should open a short-living 2.7 tree soon and Andrew 
> > (or someone else) should maintain a 2.6 tree with less changes (like 
> > Marcelo did and does with 2.4).
> 
> I don't ever want to plug anything I've written, but please see the
> current issue of Linux Journal with an article explaining how this is
> all working, why we are doing this, and how the hell we can keep sane
> this way.  I've also got slides on my website from the talk I've given
> about this topic at OLS, OSCON, and SUCON about this topic.
>...

I looked at your slides, but to be honest, I'm still not convinced.

The Andrew+Linus model with -mm works pretty well.
Why shouldn't it also work in 2.7 removing all the past problems with 
overly long release cycles between two stable series?

If it could be achieved to release 2.8 half a year after 2.7 was 
started, this should be short enough for distributions etc. for not 
having to backport too much while giving the benefits of putting the 
patch pressure away from 2.6 making it more stable.

> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h

cu
Adrian

- -- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBfaNkmfzqmE8StAARAmAvAJ9kav1shMitTz201gO+hyo4UCt3ygCfRQ70
weQeqRyMgS/r8befY8qa5Uk=
=tm91
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Willy Tarreau]

Hi Adrian,

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:40:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
 
> 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10-rc1:
> - 4 days
> - > 15 MB patches

I firmly agree, and that's one of the reasons I still don't use 2.6. This
could be avoided with a shorter release cycle with far less new features
for each version (a bit like openbsd does), because about every maintainer
would have a valid base to work on for the next release or the one after,
and would not try to push unstable code in the "stable" kernel. Today, lots
of people are certain that 2.8 (or 3.0) won't be out before 3 or 4 years. So
if they want their code released soon, they push it hard in the current
mainline :-(

> It's a bit optimistic to call this amount of change "stabilizing".

What really frightens me is that judging from the changelogs, it really
looks like cleanups, bug fixes and sometimes core changes... This gives
a terrible idea of previous release code !

> 2.6 is corrently more a development kernel than a stable kernel.

That's how I present it to friends and customers too ;-) To others, I simply
say that it's the new stable kernel, and I observe how it works for them :-)

> The last bug I observed personally was the problem with suspending when 
> using CONFIG_REGPARM=y together with Roland's waitid patch which was 
> added in 2.6.9-rc2. If I'd used 2.6.9 with the same .config as 2.6.8.1, 
> this was simple one more bug...

Each time I try a new release, I barely find it extremely slow and unstable,
and I don't know where to start from to report broken things... Unfortunately
I don't have enough time to spend on bug reports these days so I stick to a
stable 2.4.

> IMHO Andrew+Linus should open a short-living 2.7 tree soon and Andrew 
> (or someone else) should maintain a 2.6 tree with less changes (like 
> Marcelo did and does with 2.4).

Yes, but not until the core is stabilized. Otherwise, ever changing features
and exports will discourage driver maintainers from backporting fixes.

Willy
 

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:40:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10-rc1:
>> - 4 days
>> - > 15 MB patches

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 07:52:12AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I firmly agree, and that's one of the reasons I still don't use 2.6. This
> could be avoided with a shorter release cycle with far less new features
> for each version (a bit like openbsd does), because about every maintainer
> would have a valid base to work on for the next release or the one after,
> and would not try to push unstable code in the "stable" kernel. Today, lots
> of people are certain that 2.8 (or 3.0) won't be out before 3 or 4 years. So
> if they want their code released soon, they push it hard in the current
> mainline :-(

The kernel is a big program. Your sense of scale is off.


On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:40:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> It's a bit optimistic to call this amount of change "stabilizing".

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 07:52:12AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> What really frightens me is that judging from the changelogs, it really
> looks like cleanups, bug fixes and sometimes core changes... This gives
> a terrible idea of previous release code !

If you're expecting something different, perhaps your expectations are
off. Cleanups matter because they make maintenance easier. Core changes
happen because (gasp!) sometimes the core too has bugs or other issues.


On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:40:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> 2.6 is corrently more a development kernel than a stable kernel.

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 07:52:12AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> That's how I present it to friends and customers too ;-) To others, I simply
> say that it's the new stable kernel, and I observe how it works for them :-)

I could show you what kinds of changes go in a development kernel as
opposed to what's going on in 2.6, but I have other things to do.


On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:40:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> The last bug I observed personally was the problem with suspending when 
>> using CONFIG_REGPARM=y together with Roland's waitid patch which was 
>> added in 2.6.9-rc2. If I'd used 2.6.9 with the same .config as 2.6.8.1, 
>> this was simple one more bug...

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 07:52:12AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Each time I try a new release, I barely find it extremely slow and unstable,
> and I don't know where to start from to report broken things... Unfortunately
> I don't have enough time to spend on bug reports these days so I stick to a
> stable 2.4.

"Extremely slow and unstable" is so vague it can't be acted upon. How
do you expect anyone to provide a useful response to that kind of
problem description?


On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 03:40:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> IMHO Andrew+Linus should open a short-living 2.7 tree soon and Andrew 
>> (or someone else) should maintain a 2.6 tree with less changes (like 
>> Marcelo did and does with 2.4).

On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 07:52:12AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Yes, but not until the core is stabilized. Otherwise, ever changing
> features and exports will discourage driver maintainers from
> backporting fixes.

Your notion of the core being stabilized must be intractably strict.
There are, for instance, no changes comparable to converting the block
layer to use bio, or removing the global irq lock.


-- wli

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Kronos]

Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> ha scritto:
> IMHO Andrew+Linus should open a short-living 2.7 tree soon and Andrew 
> (or someone else) should maintain a 2.6 tree with less changes

Suppose that Linus or Andrew starts a new tree to develop some new and
and very big and intrusive feature. Once it's done the tree will be
merged back with 2.6 (should be easy with bk) or will become 2.8?
Just Curious.

Luca
-- 
Home: http://kronoz.cjb.net
"L'abilita` politica e` l'abilita` di prevedere quello che
 accadra` domani, la prossima settimana, il prossimo mese e
 l'anno prossimo. E di essere cosi` abili, piu` tardi,
 da spiegare  perche' non e` accaduto."

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Espen Fjellvær Olsen]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:58:11 +0200, Kronos <kronos@kronoz.cjb.net> wrote:
> Suppose that Linus or Andrew starts a new tree to develop some new and
> and very big and intrusive feature. Once it's done the tree will be
> merged back with 2.6 (should be easy with bk) or will become 2.8?
> Just Curious.
> 
> Luca

Well, if such changes are going into 2.6, it's just as good to put
them into Andrews -mm tree, imho.


-- 
Mvh / Best regards
Espen Fjellvær Olsen
espenfjo@gmail.com
Norway

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 23:52 +0200, Espen Fjellvær Olsen wrote:
> I think that 2.6 should be frozen from now on, just security related
> stuff should be merged.
> This would strengthen Linux's reputation as a stable and secure
> system, not a unstable and a system just used for fun.

My $0.02:

Part of the reasoning behind the new development model is that if you
want a stable kernel, there are many vendors who will give you one.  The
new dev model is partially driven by vendors and developers desire to
get their features into mainline quicker.  There is an inherent
stability cost associated with this, but the price is only paid by users
who want stability AND the latest kernel.org kernel.  The big players
all seem to agree that the new development model better suits users and
their own needs.  The distros are in a better position to determine what
constitutes a stable kernel anyway, they have millions of users to test
on.  Let the vendors AND the kernel hackers do what they are each best
at.

We need to continue the rapid pace of development because although Linux
rules in the small to mid server arena there are other areas where MS
and Apple are clearly ahead.  If you want to make an omelette you have
to break some eggs...

Lee

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Paul Fulghum]

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 17:58, Lee Revell wrote:
> Part of the reasoning behind the new development model is that if you
> want a stable kernel, there are many vendors who will give you one.

Precisely what I was thinking:
Features pass a utility/sanity/style check to get into main line,
and vendors provide the polished/tuned package.

> If you want to make an omelette you have
> to break some eggs...

2.6.9 left a few shells on the floor ;-)

-- 
Paul Fulghum
paulkf@microgate.com

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 06:58:24PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> My $0.02:
> Part of the reasoning behind the new development model is that if you
> want a stable kernel, there are many vendors who will give you one.  The
> new dev model is partially driven by vendors and developers desire to
> get their features into mainline quicker.  There is an inherent
> stability cost associated with this, but the price is only paid by users
> who want stability AND the latest kernel.org kernel.  The big players
> all seem to agree that the new development model better suits users and
> their own needs.  The distros are in a better position to determine what
> constitutes a stable kernel anyway, they have millions of users to test
> on.  Let the vendors AND the kernel hackers do what they are each best
> at.

I don't entirely follow these sorts of discussion, but this vaguely
disagrees with what I've heard in some nitpicky way. I believe it goes
something along the lines of absorbing more distro content on the
grounds that some of the larger variances of distro kernels have been
detrimental in the past or some such.


On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 06:58:24PM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> We need to continue the rapid pace of development because although Linux
> rules in the small to mid server arena there are other areas where MS
> and Apple are clearly ahead.  If you want to make an omelette you have
> to break some eggs...

This is clearly economics and HCI; I'll refrain from comment myself but
hope someone knowledgable there chimes in, as this likely needs
qualification.


-- wli

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Boris Bukowski]

Am Saturday, 23. October 2004 00:58 schrieb Lee Revell:
> On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 23:52 +0200, Espen Fjellvær Olsen wrote:
> > I think that 2.6 should be frozen from now on, just security related
> > stuff should be merged.
> > This would strengthen Linux's reputation as a stable and secure
> > system, not a unstable and a system just used for fun.
>
> My $0.02:
>
> Part of the reasoning behind the new development model is that if you
> want a stable kernel, there are many vendors who will give you one.  The
I don't trust them :)
> new dev model is partially driven by vendors and developers desire to
> get their features into mainline quicker.  There is an inherent
> stability cost associated with this, but the price is only paid by users
> who want stability AND the latest kernel.org kernel.  The big players
> all seem to agree that the new development model better suits users and
> their own needs.  The distros are in a better position to determine what
> constitutes a stable kernel anyway, they have millions of users to test
> on.  Let the vendors AND the kernel hackers do what they are each best
> at.
Vendors are interested in making money, kernel hackers are interested in
bringing the kernel forward, Admins are interested in keeping their Servers 
up.
It looks like we need a Community driven Enterprise Kernel.
We decided to start testing with 2.6.10 and use it if there are no Problems.
Maybe there are other Admins doing the same and we can start our own
Enterprise Kernel. 
Sombody interested in such a Project?

Boris

Re: My thoughts on the

[Alban Browaeys]

> It looks like we need a Community driven Enterprise Kernel.
> We decided to start testing with 2.6.10 and use it if there are no
> Problems.
> Maybe there are other Admins doing the same and we can start our own
> Enterprise Kernel. 


Hum Debian or is it driven by money ?
I bet Community Driven Entreprise Kernel is way better in marketing than debian
kernel though are we not driven by stability ...

Cheers
Alban 

Re: My thoughts on the

[Boris Bukowski]

Am Saturday, 23. October 2004 15:27 schrieb Alban Browaeys:
> > It looks like we need a Community driven Enterprise Kernel.
> > We decided to start testing with 2.6.10 and use it if there are no
> > Problems.
> > Maybe there are other Admins doing the same and we can start our own
> > Enterprise Kernel.
> Hum Debian or is it driven by money ?
We (Lycos-Europe) are running Debian on several hundred Servers and as far
as I know the Woody Kernel's are not usable on most of this Servers.
So we are using a 2.4 vanilla kernel with some patches on these Systems.
> I bet Community Driven Entreprise Kernel is way better in marketing than
> debian kernel though are we not driven by stability ...
I used the buzz word cause it was the standard answer if somebody asked.
I think there are many Admins who have to find a good 2.6 Release
and have than the work to maintain it. 
Doing it together will save a lot of time.
Only a idea, at least my english is not good enough to realize this.

Boris 
 

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[John Richard Moser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Espen Fjellvær Olsen wrote:
| This may come a bit late now, since the "new development model" was
| put through late this summer.
| But anyway i'm going to come with som thoughts about it.
|
| I think that 2.6 should be frozen from now on, just security related
| stuff should be merged.
| This would strengthen Linux's reputation as a stable and secure
| system, not a unstable and a system just used for fun.
| A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
| into it, and where people could begin to think new again.
| New thoughts are good in all ways, it is for sure very much code in
| the current kernels that should be revised, rewritten and maybe marked
| as deprecated.
|
| :)

I agree fully.

I've been quite worried and annoyed.  While I do think the newest
releases and the changes in 2.6.9 and .10 are damn cool, and i want
them, I also won't let go of PaX.  PaX stopped at 2.6.7 because of
internal VM changes; the kernel's unstable state is making it an undue
amount of work for the PaX team to update PaX for the newest kernels.
If all the time is spent porting it up to the new VM changes, then there
is no time for bugfixes and improvements.

PaX is a core component of GrSecurity as well; as long as the PaX
project is halted at 2.6.7, GrSec can't pass 2.6.7.  How many other
projects are going to sit at 2.6.7, or are going to spend too much time
up-porting and not enough time bugfixing and enhancing?

I do not propose freezing *now* if it's not convenient; I say you pick
what you want to finish up (maybe some of the Montavista stuff; I'd
personally like voluntary pre-empt and friends at least), get that in,
and slate any new developments for a 2.6.7 branch to be forked off
whenever is appropriate.

|
| --
| Mvh / Best regards
| Espen Fjellvær Olsen
| espenfjo@gmail.com
| Norway
| -
| 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/
|

- --
All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the
Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBfnTdhDd4aOud5P8RAlsMAJ9ppwugKHeXm9pjDePNyRuQ9mTvZACfXwNR
Tj930yU5hMJFrbj27ez3lWQ=
=XEVU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[John Richard Moser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



John Richard Moser wrote:
|
|
[...]

| project is halted at 2.6.7, GrSec can't pass 2.6.7.  How many other
| projects are going to sit at 2.6.7, or are going to spend too much time
| up-porting and not enough time bugfixing and enhancing?

[...]

| and slate any new developments for a 2.6.7 branch to be forked off
| whenever is appropriate.

Yeah, I'm like, asleep, and stupid.  PaX/GrSec are stuck at 2.6.7,
others may be stuck at 2.6.x or may be progressing poorly just trying to
keep up.  Slate new developments for a 2.7 branch to be forked.  You get
the idea.


- --
All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the
Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBfn7lhDd4aOud5P8RAsRCAJ9XI7SHxnUPQHlToJD90ml8fTqrXwCeMifz
ukgT9hdWcDjejeaPRR1pc40=
=nVRb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

RE: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Hua Zhong]

The fact is, these days nobody wants to be a stable-release maintainer
anymore. It's boring.

I don't agree that the new development is "better" in the sense of keeping
stability and quality, but I can't blame Andrew for that. Let people do
whatever they like to do, and they'll do a better job.

So unless someone steps up and does it, there is no point in arguing. Of
course, s/he won't be an "official maintainer" as endorsed/appointed by
Linus like previous releases, but that might be better as it's more like
"people choose XXX" instead of "Linus forces XXX onto people"? :)

Hua

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Diego Calleja]

El Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:58:41 -0700 "Hua Zhong" <hzhong@cisco.com> escribió:

> The fact is, these days nobody wants to be a stable-release maintainer
> anymore. It's boring.

I doubt it. People like Alan Cox or Marcello have done it in the past, and I 
bet many others could do it. Not everybody uses the latest -mm available in
their machines.

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Paul Fulghum]

Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Tue, 26 Oct 2004 09:58:41 -0700 "Hua Zhong" <hzhong@cisco.com> escribió:
>>The fact is, these days nobody wants to be a stable-release maintainer
>>anymore. It's boring.
> 
> I doubt it. People like Alan Cox or Marcello have done it in the past,

...and probably suffer emotional scars from the process.
Taming the patch stream must be like drinking from a fire hose
while herding angry, computer literate cats.
Wearing, but not boring.

In the words of Flipper: *squeeee* eh eh eh eh *squeeeee*

Translation:
"Maintaining a kernel source tree is more vexatious than a tuna net."

-- 
Paul Fulghum
paulkf@microgate.com

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Alan Cox]

On Maw, 2004-10-26 at 20:33, Paul Fulghum wrote:
> ...and probably suffer emotional scars from the process.
> Taming the patch stream must be like drinking from a fire hose
> while herding angry, computer literate cats.
> Wearing, but not boring.

For 2.2 certainly and I suspect for 2.4 it's also like that. The
2.6.x.[1-n] is more like distribution maintenance its about careful
analysis and minimal changes.

RE: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Alan Cox]

On Maw, 2004-10-26 at 17:58, Hua Zhong wrote:
> The fact is, these days nobody wants to be a stable-release maintainer
> anymore. It's boring.

That depends what kind of an engineer you are. Just as there are people
who love standards body work and compliance testing/debugging there are
people who care about stable trees.

RE: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Hua Zhong]

> On Maw, 2004-10-26 at 17:58, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > The fact is, these days nobody wants to be a stable-release 
> >maintainer anymore. It's boring.
> 
> That depends what kind of an engineer you are. Just as there 
> are people who love standards body work and compliance 
> testing/debugging there are people who care about stable trees.

Absolutely agreed. There are folks around me who can do one thing much
better than the other.

When I said "nobody", I really meant "top kernel developers". I have not
seen anyone step up and say "I'll volunteer to maintain a 2.6 stable
release" hence the comment.

This is actually not a problem caused by the new development model per se.
The same thing might have happened with 2.4. You know what I'm talking
about. Most talented people just like new challenges instead of maintaining
old code.

However, there are some things that make this situation worse by the new
model.
1. No official stable releases and thus no official maintainers. 2.6 is no
longer a stable release. 2.6.x might be. And Linus doesn't seem to plan to
endorse anyone for this job. Previously, Linus could appoint someone and
even if he is not really well-known, people would eventually accept him, but
now it's not the case anymore. More importantly, if there is no official
stable releases, whom do other people send bug fixes to? From both user and
developer perspective, this is very hard to work out.

2. The new version scheme. Now a stable release has to be 2.6.x. So instead
of being a 2.6 maintainer, you might be called a 2.6.x maintainer. One extra
number, less importance and recognicion, and less motivation for volunteers
to show up (especially for relatively new people). Just common psychology.
:)

These are just my observations. As far as I can see only two things will
help:
1. Appoint an official 2.6 maintainer. Be it someone Linus appoints, or
someone like Alan Cox who volunteers. :-)
2. This maintainer will not be stuck at only one 2.6.x version. Instead, he
maintains 2.6.x for a while until it is stable enough, and then move up to
2.6.y (y>x), and start the stabilization again.

Hua

RE: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Alan Cox]

On Mer, 2004-10-27 at 19:37, Hua Zhong wrote:
> When I said "nobody", I really meant "top kernel developers". I have not
> seen anyone step up and say "I'll volunteer to maintain a 2.6 stable
> release" hence the comment.

I'll do it if Linus wants

That's it - RE: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Hua Zhong]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312", Size: 636 bytes --]

Hey, you all hear the man!

Now stop complaining and give him a title. :-) 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Cox [mailto:alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 2:39 PM
> To: hzhong@cisco.com
> Cc: 'John Richard Moser'; 'Espen Fjellvær Olsen'; 'Linux 
> Kernel Mailing List'
> Subject: RE: My thoughts on the "new development model"
> 
> On Mer, 2004-10-27 at 19:37, Hua Zhong wrote:
> > When I said "nobody", I really meant "top kernel developers". 
> > I have not seen anyone step up and say "I'll volunteer to 
> > maintain a 2.6 stable release" hence the comment.
> 
> I'll do it if Linus wants
> 

RE: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 09:58 -0700, Hua Zhong wrote:
> The fact is, these days nobody wants to be a stable-release maintainer
> anymore. It's boring.

I wouldn't mind doing some sort of bugfix kernel series it if people
think it'd be useful... but that's a big if.... the hard part of any
such tree is finding people who help testing, and yet the customers of
such a tree are those who only want proven stable stuff ;)

-- 

RE: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Marcos D. Marado Torres]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> I wouldn't mind doing some sort of bugfix kernel series it if people
> think it'd be useful... but that's a big if.... the hard part of any
> such tree is finding people who help testing, and yet the customers of
> such a tree are those who only want proven stable stuff ;)

You're going to have testers/users for sure, specially if you're relases appear
in kernel.org... That won't be your problem.

Mind Booster Noori

- -- 
/* *************************************************************** */
    Marcos Daniel Marado Torres	     AKA	Mind Booster Noori
    http://student.dei.uc.pt/~marado   -	  marado@student.dei.uc.pt
    () Join the ASCII ribbon campaign against html email, Microsoft
    /\ attachments and Software patents.   They endanger the World.
    Sign a petition against patents:  http://petition.eurolinux.org
/* *************************************************************** */
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76

iD8DBQFBf/a4mNlq8m+oD34RAlSDAKDP5gtubpS6lH+ziMEzsCfjr+X4pwCeO37A
F4Uw354WqtakT9fPJSIX0D4=
=Gsrs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:01:33 -0400
John Richard Moser <nigelenki@comcast.net> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> 
> Espen Fjellvær Olsen wrote:
> | This may come a bit late now, since the "new development model" was
> | put through late this summer.
> | But anyway i'm going to come with som thoughts about it.
> |
> | I think that 2.6 should be frozen from now on, just security related
> | stuff should be merged.
> | This would strengthen Linux's reputation as a stable and secure
> | system, not a unstable and a system just used for fun.
> | A 2.7 should be created where all new experimental stuff is merged
> | into it, and where people could begin to think new again.
> | New thoughts are good in all ways, it is for sure very much code in
> | the current kernels that should be revised, rewritten and maybe marked
> | as deprecated.
> |
> | :)
> 
> I agree fully.
> 
> I've been quite worried and annoyed.  While I do think the newest
> releases and the changes in 2.6.9 and .10 are damn cool, and i want
> them, I also won't let go of PaX.  PaX stopped at 2.6.7 because of
> internal VM changes; the kernel's unstable state is making it an undue
> amount of work for the PaX team to update PaX for the newest kernels.
> If all the time is spent porting it up to the new VM changes, then there
> is no time for bugfixes and improvements.
> 
> PaX is a core component of GrSecurity as well; as long as the PaX
> project is halted at 2.6.7, GrSec can't pass 2.6.7.  How many other
> projects are going to sit at 2.6.7, or are going to spend too much time
> up-porting and not enough time bugfixing and enhancing?
>

The Linux development model is not setup to be convenient for out of tree
kernel development. This is intentional, if the project is out of tree no
kernel developer is going to see it or fix it. Submit it and get it reviewed
and into the process or quit complaining and make and maintain your
own "stable" tree.

> I do not propose freezing *now* if it's not convenient; I say you pick
> what you want to finish up (maybe some of the Montavista stuff; I'd
> personally like voluntary pre-empt and friends at least), get that in,
> and slate any new developments for a 2.6.7 branch to be forked off
> whenever is appropriate.

Everyone's list of what they want added to 2.6 is different. So the
kernel work continues and is the union of everyone's good ideas (and
a few bad ones).

Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

[John Richard Moser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Stephen Hemminger wrote:
| On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:01:33 -0400

[...]
|
|
| The Linux development model is not setup to be convenient for out of tree
| kernel development. This is intentional, if the project is out of tree no
| kernel developer is going to see it or fix it. Submit it and get it
reviewed
| and into the process or quit complaining and make and maintain your
| own "stable" tree.

"The Linux development model is intentionally crafted to impede progress."

That's all you had to say.

Progress has to occur outside mainline before it can be submitted.  By
impeding such progress, you potentially prevent things from keeping
current enough to reach a stable point and be ready for mainline
inclusion.  Overall, you're slowing down development and making it more
difficult.

[...]

|
| Everyone's list of what they want added to 2.6 is different. So the
| kernel work continues and is the union of everyone's good ideas (and
| a few bad ones).

Actually, a few minutes after this, I belted out a cheap and unrefined,
fairly hackish proposal[1] for a similar but slightly altered model.
Commentary on it and refinement may be nice.  Maybe I'm just trying to
make everybody happy, and it's not possible?

[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/26/171

- --
All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the
Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBfpmkhDd4aOud5P8RAmO4AJ4oxPajdqf6+xt3KUejxLRxZStASgCfded/
FmuWzyk865VsQr2uuIG/a1I=
=HYDL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----