Re: stable? quality assurance?

[Martin Steigerwald <Martin@lichtvoll.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2998 bytes --]

Am Sonntag 11 Juli 2010 schrieb Eric Dumazet:
> Le dimanche 11 juillet 2010 à 09:18 +0200, Martin Steigerwald a écrit :
> > Hi!

Hi Eric,

> > 2.6.34 was a desaster for me: bug #15969 - patch was availble before
> > 2.6.34 already, bug #15788, also reported with 2.6.34-rc2 already, as
> > well as most important two complete lockups - well maybe just X.org
> > and radeon KMS, I didn't start my second laptop to SSH into the
> > locked up one - on my ThinkPad T42. I fixed the first one with the
> > patch, but after the lockups I just downgraded to 2.6.33 again.
> > 
> > I still actually *use* my machines for something else than hunting
> > patches for kernel bugs and on kernel.org it is written "Latest
> > *Stable* Kernel" (accentuation from me). I know of the argument that
[...]

> > advertised as such on kernel.org I think. I am willing to risk some
> > testing and do bug reports, but these are still production machines,
> > I do not have any spare test machines, and there needs to be some
> > balance, i.e. the kernels should basically work. Thus I for sure
> > will be more reluctant to upgrade in the future.
> > 
> > Ciao,
> 
> Anybody running latest kernel on a production machine is living
> dangerously. Dont you already know that ?

Yes, and I indicated it above. But in my - naturally rather subjective I 
admit - perception the balance between stable and unstable from about 1 or 
2 years ago has been lost. In my personal experience it has gotten much 
worse in the last time. To the extent that I skipped some major kernels 
versions completely. For example 2.6.30.

And its not servers - these use distro kernels.  

> When 2.6.X is released, everybody knows it contains at least 100 bugs.

Then why its still labeled "stable" on kernel.org? It is not. It is at 
most beta quality software.

Its not more stable than KDE 4.0 wasn't stable, but at least they 
mentioned in the release notes.

> It was true for all previous values of X, it will be true for all
> futures values.
> 
> If you want to be safer, use a one year old kernel, with all stable
> patches in.
> 
> Something like 2.6.32.16 : Its probably more stable than all 2.6.X
> kernels.
> 
> If 2.6.33 runs OK on your machine, you are lucky, since 2.6.33.6
> contains numerous bug fixes.

Actually it was 2.6.33.1 with userspace software suspend and it had pretty 
good uptimes above 20 days - only interrupted by installing 2.6.34.

Well then if everybody else considers this for granted I just replace that 
"stable" on kernel.org by "beta quality" - from my perception it does not 
even have release candidate status in the last iterations - in my mind and 
be done with it.

At as soon as the kernel contains a performant hibernation infrastructure 
I will probably just use distro kernels and be done with it.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]