Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel

Bill Davidsen
2005-12-05T23:11:04Z

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The current kernel development model is pretty good for people who
> always want to use or offer their costumers the maximum amount of the
> latest bugs^Wfeatures without having to resort on additional patches for
> them.
>
> Problems of the current development model from a user's point of view
> are:
> - many regressions in every new release
> - kernel updates often require updates for the kernel-related userspace
> (e.g. for udev or the pcmcia tools switch)
>
> One problem following from this is that people continue to use older
> kernels with known security holes because the amount of work for kernel
> upgrades is too high.

Depending on where you work, "not working" may be acceptable vs.
"working with a known security hole."
>
> These problems follow from the development model.
>
> The latest stable kernel series without these problems is 2.4, but 2.4
> is becoming more and more obsolete and might e.g. lack driver support
> for some recent hardware you want to use.
>
> Since Andrew and Linus do AFAIK not plan to change the development
> model, what about the following for getting a stable kernel series
> without leaving the current development model:
>
>
> Kernel 2.6.16 will be the base for a stable series.
>
> After 2.6.16, there will be a 2.6.16.y series with the usual stable
> rules.
>
> After the release of 2.6.17, this 2.6.16.y series will be continued with
> more relaxed rules similar to the rules in kernel 2.4 since the release
> of kernel 2.6.0 (e.g. driver updates will be allowed).

Actually I would be happy with the stability of this series if people
would stop trying to take working features OUT of it! That's the largest
problem I see, not that the existing features are unstable, and we have
a -stable branch to cover that, but that I can't count on features I use
and which are required for useful work.

If a firm policy of not removing supported features until 2.7 was
adopted I don't see a problem. The bulk of the instability (not
absolutely all, I grant), is in new features, or features which aren't
working all that well in any case. But if existing features suddenly
drop out from beneath the user, then you will find people doing what you
mentioned, staying with old kernels with holes rather than moving to
kernels which are simply no longer functional.

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