Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Chuck Ebbert]

Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Thanks to BitKeeper no properly-tagged branch is ever dead.
>
> Anyone could make a 2.6.8.2 if they so chose.
>

  But it would be pointless without offical blessing from Linus.


--Chuck Ebbert

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Jeff Garzik]

Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
> 
>>Thanks to BitKeeper no properly-tagged branch is ever dead.
>>
>>Anyone could make a 2.6.8.2 if they so chose.
>>
> 
> 
>   But it would be pointless without offical blessing from Linus.


Why don't you create a 2.6.8.2 and see what happens?  :)

	Jeff

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Alan Cox]

On Iau, 2004-10-07 at 08:05, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Thanks to BitKeeper no properly-tagged branch is ever dead.
> > Anyone could make a 2.6.8.2 if they so chose.
>   But it would be pointless without offical blessing from Linus.

Pray how do you thing the 2.0.x-ac kernel series started. Yes it
would be ".2ce" but people will judge code by whether it works and over
time. Linus doesn't have infinite time to bless each small change

Alan

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Chuck Ebbert]

Alan Cox wrote:

> >  But it would be pointless without offical blessing from Linus.
>
> Pray how do you thing the 2.0.x-ac kernel series started. Yes it
> would be ".2ce" but people will judge code by whether it works and over
> time.

 Another boutique kernel was not what I had in mind.

 If it weren't official there would probably be just one user: me.


--Chuck Ebbert  07-Oct-04  12:39:34

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Chuck Ebbert]

Jeff Garzik wrote:

> Why don't you create a 2.6.8.2 and see what happens?  :)
>

 Can't start until 2.6.9.  2.6.8.2 would be too big to manage by now.

 My idea would be to put out small patches as quickly as possible,
with (hopefully) a single RC followed by release a few days later.



--Chuck Ebbert  07-Oct-04  10:23:30

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Chuck Ebbert]

Trent Lloyd wrote:

> 2.6.8.1 was released because there was a 1-line error in 2.6.8 that
> completely stopped NFS from working.
>

  Yes, I know that.


> The patches mentioned below will probably go into 2.6.9 or something, if
> they have been approved for it etc.
>

  A host of new bugs will probably be added too, leaving the average user with
no stable 'offical' kernel to use -- ever.


--Chuck Ebbert

Vanity kills/It don't pay bills  --ABC

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Trent Lloyd]

Hi,

> > 2.6.8.1 was released because there was a 1-line error in 2.6.8 that
> > completely stopped NFS from working.
>   Yes, I know that.
> 
> > The patches mentioned below will probably go into 2.6.9 or something, if
> > they have been approved for it etc.
> >
> 
>   A host of new bugs will probably be added too, leaving the average user with
> no stable 'offical' kernel to use -- ever.
Well that's a different argument over whether to branch into 2.7 yet
or not

But please, can we not go there...

Cheers,
Trent
Bur.st

-- 
Trent Lloyd <lathiat@bur.st>
Bur.st Networking Inc.

Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Chuck Ebbert]

Why has linux 2.6.8 been abandoned at version 2.6.8.1?

There exist fixes that could go into 2.6.8.2:

        process start time doesn't match system time
        FDDI frame doesn't allow 802.3 hwtype
        NFS server using XFS filesystem on SMP machine oopses

I'm sure there are more...

So why is 2.6.8.1 a "dead branch?"


--Chuck Ebbert

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[alan]

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Chuck Ebbert wrote:

> Why has linux 2.6.8 been abandoned at version 2.6.8.1?
> 
> There exist fixes that could go into 2.6.8.2:
> 
>         process start time doesn't match system time
>         FDDI frame doesn't allow 802.3 hwtype
>         NFS server using XFS filesystem on SMP machine oopses
> 
> I'm sure there are more...
> 
> So why is 2.6.8.1 a "dead branch?"

It was an emergency "paperbag" release number.

All paperbag releases are made from dead branches.

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Jeff Garzik]

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 09:46:46PM -0700, alan wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> 
> > Why has linux 2.6.8 been abandoned at version 2.6.8.1?
> > 
> > There exist fixes that could go into 2.6.8.2:
> > 
> >         process start time doesn't match system time
> >         FDDI frame doesn't allow 802.3 hwtype
> >         NFS server using XFS filesystem on SMP machine oopses
> > 
> > I'm sure there are more...
> > 
> > So why is 2.6.8.1 a "dead branch?"
> 
> It was an emergency "paperbag" release number.
> 
> All paperbag releases are made from dead branches.


Thanks to BitKeeper no properly-tagged branch is ever dead.

Anyone could make a 2.6.8.2 if they so chose.

	Jeff

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Trent Lloyd]

Hi Chuck,

We don't usually make a 4th point in our versions, the next version
after 2.6.8 would usually be 2.6.9, which will come out in due course.

2.6.8.1 was released because there was a 1-line error in 2.6.8 that
completely stopped NFS from working.

The patches mentioned below will probably go into 2.6.9 or something, if
they have been approved for it etc.

Hope that clears it up.

Cheers,
Trent
Bur.st

> Why has linux 2.6.8 been abandoned at version 2.6.8.1?
> 
> There exist fixes that could go into 2.6.8.2:
> 
>         process start time doesn't match system time
>         FDDI frame doesn't allow 802.3 hwtype
>         NFS server using XFS filesystem on SMP machine oopses
> 
> I'm sure there are more...
> 
> So why is 2.6.8.1 a "dead branch?"
> 
> 
> --Chuck Ebbert
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
Trent Lloyd <lathiat@bur.st>
Bur.st Networking Inc.

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Jeff Garzik]

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 01:31:39AM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Why has linux 2.6.8 been abandoned at version 2.6.8.1?
> 
> There exist fixes that could go into 2.6.8.2:
> 
>         process start time doesn't match system time
>         FDDI frame doesn't allow 802.3 hwtype
>         NFS server using XFS filesystem on SMP machine oopses
> 
> I'm sure there are more...
> 
> So why is 2.6.8.1 a "dead branch?"

Since it's in BitKeeper, it's not dead, it's just sleeping...

$ bk clone -ql -rv2.6.8.1 linux-2.6 linux-2.6.8-branch
$ cpcset <cset> linux-2.6 linux-2.6.8-branch
$ # repeat for each <cset> to apply
$ cd linux-2.6.8-branch
$ bk vi Makefile	# bump version
$ bk tag v2.6.8.2
$ # release 2.6.8.2 ...

Re: Why no linux-2.6.8.2? (was Re: new dev model)

[Tomasz Torcz]

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 01:31:39AM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Why has linux 2.6.8 been abandoned at version 2.6.8.1?
> 
> There exist fixes that could go into 2.6.8.2:
> 
>         process start time doesn't match system time
>         FDDI frame doesn't allow 802.3 hwtype
>         NFS server using XFS filesystem on SMP machine oopses

 - Qdisc alignment errors, effectivly killing almost every single Linux router.
 - giant memory leaks when writing audio cds (IIRC)

-- 
Tomasz Torcz                "Funeral in the morning, IDE hacking
zdzichu@irc.-nie.spam-.pl    in the afternoon and evening." - Alan Cox