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

Adrian Bunk
2005-12-03T22:40:31Z

On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 10:18:10PM +0100, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2005-12-03T16:13:29, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > The big problem is though that we don't typically find out that
> > we've regressed until after a kernel update is in the end-users hands.
> >
> > In many cases, submitters of changes know that things are going
> > to break. Maybe we need a policy that says changes requiring userspace updates
> > need to be clearly documented in the mails Linus gets (Especially if its
> > a git pull request), so that when the next point release gets released,
> > Linus can put a section in the announcement detailing what bits
> > of userspace are needed to be updated.
>
> True, but this first block doesn't really qualify as a "regression".
> Yes, a clearer-than-crystal documentation of "this kernel requires
> user-space component foo to be at least x.y.z if feature bar is used"
> would go a long way.
>
> And if then user-space itself was tolerant of at least version N and
> N-1, then users could even roll back one kernel version if problems
> arise.
>
> Both of these are documentation and user-space issues, and don't much
> depend on changes to kernel development model.
>...

One effect that you mustn't underestimate is that if people had to got
to N-1 for two or three different N due to different regressions in
different kernels, they might decide to stay with kernel version M even
though kernel M+10 might have been released and version M lacks tons of
security fixes.

> Sincerely,
> Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>

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