Re: RFD: Kernel release numbering

Andres Salomon
2005-03-06T07:30:13Z

Clearly I picked a bad week to go on vacation..

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005
10:18:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
>
> Alan, I think your problem is that you really think that the tree _I_ want
> is what _you_ want.
>
> I look at this from a _layering_ standpoint. Not from a "stable tree"
> standpoint at all.
>
> We're always had the "wild" kernels, and 90% of the time the point of the
> "wild" kernels has been to let people test out the experimental stuff,
> that's not always ready for merging. Like it or not, I've considered even
> the -ac kernel historically very much a "wild" thing, not a "bugfixes"
> thing.
>
> What I'd like to set up is the reverse. The same way the "wild" kernels
> tend to layer on top of my standard kernel, I'd like to have a lower
> level, the "anti-wild" kernel. Something that is comprised of patches
> that _everybody_ can agree on, and that doesn't get anything else. AT ALL.
>

That is what I'm trying to do w/ my tree; obvious fixes only. Most of
the patches I've included in 2.6.10-asX have been stupid build fixes, and
basic C problems (ie, deref'ing a pointer before it's been assigned). The
main time I make exceptions for that is for security fixes.

> And that means that such a kernel would not get all patches that you'd
> want. That's fine. That was never the aim of it. The _only_ point of
> this kernel would be to have a baseline that nobody can disagree with.
>
> In other words, it's not a "let's fix all serious bugs we can fix", but
> a "this is the least common denominator that is basically acceptable to
> everybody, regardless of what their objectives are".
>
> So if you want to fix a security issue, and the fix is too big or
> invasive or ugly for the "least common denominator" thing, then it
> simply does not _go_ into that kernel. At that point, it goes into an
> -ac kernel, or into my kernel, or into a vendor kernel. See?
>

This is understandable. I have included security fixes in -as that were
non-trivial; if a 2.6.x.y tree is not willing to include them, then I
guess it won't be what I was hoping. I had emailed Chris before going on
vacation, offering to work with him on 2.6.x.y (which would allow me to
drop -as), but if security fixes aren't a higher priority thing (even
in the face of invasive/ugly changes), then I guess there's still a need
for -as/-ac.