Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

["Pasi Kärkkäinen" <pasik@iki.fi>]

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:57:17PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 18:27:47 CEST schrieb David Sterba:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 04:27:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> > > > I therefore would like to propose that some sort of feature / stability
> > > > matrix for the latest kernel is added to the wiki preferably somewhere
> > > > where it is easy to find. It would be nice to archive old matrix'es as
> > > > well in case someone runs on a bit older kernel (we who use Debian tend
> > > > to like older kernels). In my opinion it would make things bit easier
> > > > and perhaps a bit less scary too. Remember if you get bitten badly once
> > > > you tend to stay away from from it all just in case, if you on the other
> > > > hand know what bites you can safely pet the fluffy end instead :)
> > > 
> > > Somebody has put that table on the wiki, so it's a good starting point.
> > > I'm not sure we can fit everything into one table, some combinations do
> > > not bring new information and we'd need n-dimensional matrix to get the
> > > whole picture.
> > 
> > https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Status
> 
> Great.
> 
> I made to minor adaption. I added a link to the Status page to my warning in 
> before the kernel log by feature page. And I also mentioned that at the time 
> the page was last updated the latest kernel version was 4.7. Yes, thats some 
> extra work to update the kernel version, but I think its beneficial to 
> explicitely mention the kernel version the page talks about. Everyone who 
> updates the page can update the version within a second.
> 

Hmm.. that will still leave people wondering "but I'm running Linux 4.4, not 4.7, I wonder what the status of feature X is.." 

Should we also add a column for kernel version, so we can add "feature X is known to be OK on Linux 3.18 and later"..  ?
Or add those to "notes" field, where applicable? 


-- Pasi

> -- 
> Martin