Re: Is stability a joke? (wiki updated)

["Austin S. Hemmelgarn" <ahferroin7@gmail.com>]

On 2016-09-12 16:44, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> wrote:
>> Am Montag, 12. September 2016, 23:21:09 CEST schrieb Pasi Kärkkäinen:
>>> 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?
>>
>> That was my initial idea, and it may be better than a generic kernel version
>> for all features. Even if we fill in 4.7 for any of the features that are
>> known to work okay for the table.
>>
>> For RAID 1 I am willing to say it works stable since kernel 3.14, as this was
>> the kernel I used when I switched /home and / to Dual SSD RAID 1 on this
>> ThinkPad T520.
>
> Just to cut yourself some slack, you could skip 3.14 because it's EOL
> now, and just go from 4.4.
That reminds me, we should probably make a point to make it clear that 
this is for the _upstream_ mainline kernel versions, not for versions 
from some arbitrary distro, and that people should check the distro's 
documentation for that info.