Re: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

Re: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[Nick Craig-Wood]

In linux.kernel, you wrote:
>  On Gwe, 2005-06-03 at 23:43, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Just wanted to say in public that I think the stable 2.6.x.y kernel 
> > series is working out quite well.  Kudos to the stable@kernel.org team 
> > for a job well done.
> 
>  Ditto, and its been conservative enough that not only does it stay
>  pretty stable (one partition slip-up so far is very good indeed) its
>  small enough that most of the add on patches people use aren't breaking
>  against it either.

Hearty agreement from me.

The next hurdle for 2.6.11-stable is to make sure that everything that
went into it goes into 2.6.12.  Is there a procedure for that?

-- 
Nick Craig-Wood <nick@craig-wood.com> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick

Re: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[Frank Sorenson]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> Hearty agreement from me.
> 
> The next hurdle for 2.6.11-stable is to make sure that everything that
> went into it goes into 2.6.12.  Is there a procedure for that?

Other way around.  In order to be accepted into -stable, it needs to
already have been accepted into mainline.  More information at
http://kerneltrap.org/node/4827/54751

Frank
- --
Frank Sorenson - KD7TZK
Systems Manager, Computer Science Department
Brigham Young University
frank@tuxrocks.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCpbpmaI0dwg4A47wRAsTSAKCiDtUqKOdr43/lqaBA4zdijGZUygCg3Atb
gSmK6WjZQC3jRLbFiqRD6Wk=
=mtKE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[Bill Davidsen]

Frank Sorenson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> 
>>Hearty agreement from me.
>>
>>The next hurdle for 2.6.11-stable is to make sure that everything that
>>went into it goes into 2.6.12.  Is there a procedure for that?
> 
> 
> Other way around.  In order to be accepted into -stable, it needs to
> already have been accepted into mainline.  More information at
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/4827/54751

It's more complex than that, because -stable allows simple fixes while a 
complex fix or even total rethink may be in mainline. I'm personally 
happy with that, although I don't know if it has actually happened.

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

Re: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[Nick Craig-Wood]

In linux.kernel, Frank Sorenson wrote:
>  Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> > The next hurdle for 2.6.11-stable is to make sure that everything that
> > went into it goes into 2.6.12.  Is there a procedure for that?
> 
>  Other way around.  In order to be accepted into -stable, it needs to
>  already have been accepted into mainline.  More information at
>  http://kerneltrap.org/node/4827/54751

It doesn't actually say that on the above web page.  I remember it
being discussed, but it isn't on that page (unless I've missed it of
course ;-)

It wouldn't always be appropriate either - a -stable patch might
disable something which has a huge security hole in, wheras that sort
of patch wouldn't get accepted in mainline.

-- 
Nick Craig-Wood <nick@craig-wood.com> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick

Re: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[Chris Wright]

* Nick Craig-Wood (nick@craig-wood.com) wrote:
> In linux.kernel, Frank Sorenson wrote:
> >  Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> > > The next hurdle for 2.6.11-stable is to make sure that everything that
> > > went into it goes into 2.6.12.  Is there a procedure for that?
> > 
> >  Other way around.  In order to be accepted into -stable, it needs to
> >  already have been accepted into mainline.  More information at
> >  http://kerneltrap.org/node/4827/54751
> 
> It doesn't actually say that on the above web page.  I remember it
> being discussed, but it isn't on that page (unless I've missed it of
> course ;-)
> 
> It wouldn't always be appropriate either - a -stable patch might
> disable something which has a huge security hole in, wheras that sort
> of patch wouldn't get accepted in mainline.

There's lot of grey areas, those are guidelines for acceptance.  And,
per your earlier comment, we do push patches to Linus where appropriate.
Typically, we prefer to see them upstream, helps add much credibility
to the stability of the patch.

Re: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[Nick Craig-Wood]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 11:50:11AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> There's lot of grey areas, those are guidelines for acceptance.  And,
> per your earlier comment, we do push patches to Linus where appropriate.
> Typically, we prefer to see them upstream, helps add much credibility
> to the stability of the patch.

Good!  I'd just hate to see all that hard work go missing when 2.6.12
is released.

-- 
Nick Craig-Wood <nick@craig-wood.com> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick

Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[Jeff Garzik]

(because it's Friday, the time to yammer about such things...)


Just wanted to say in public that I think the stable 2.6.x.y kernel 
series is working out quite well.  Kudos to the stable@kernel.org team 
for a job well done.

The 2.6.x.y series is definitely filling a needed niche.

	Jeff

Re: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[Grant Coady]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:43:59 -0400, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>(because it's Friday, the time to yammer about such things...)
>
>
>Just wanted to say in public that I think the stable 2.6.x.y kernel 
>series is working out quite well.  Kudos to the stable@kernel.org team 
>for a job well done.
>
>The 2.6.x.y series is definitely filling a needed niche.

For slackware users too (no distro kernel fixes), this is first time 
I switch a couple boxen to 2.6 series full time.  Compared to running 
the late 2.3.99 - early 2.4 years ago (on redhat6.2) where one 
switched between main or -ac depending on current stability :)

Back when Jeff fiddling with tulips?

--Grant.

RE: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[szonyi calin]

--- Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> a écrit :

> 
> (because it's Friday, the time to yammer about such things...)
> 
> 
> Just wanted to say in public that I think the stable 2.6.x.y
> kernel 
> series is working out quite well.  Kudos to the
> stable@kernel.org team 
> for a job well done.
> 

What do you mean is working ? Those patches are mainly one line
 fixes to the 2.6.x tree so most of the time there is not a 
difference between them and the 2.6.x kernel

> The 2.6.x.y series is definitely filling a needed niche.
> 

They are making some people believe in word "stable" ;-)
It would be nice if they will be real stable (i.e. more fixes to
the kernel tree).

> 	Jeff
> 

Calin

P.S. No, i don't use 2.6.x.y because i don't think a one line
patch will make the kernel more stable. Just my 2c ...
P.S.2. I just checked again www.kernel.org and saw that in the
newer
2.6.x.y  kernels there are some more changes. So i'll give them
a try to see the difference ;-). But i'm reserved ;-) 

--
A mouse is a device used to point at 
the xterm you want to type in.
Kim Alm on a.s.r.


	

	
		
_____________________________________________________________________________ 
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vidéos ! 
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

RE: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[Arjan van de Ven]

> They are making some people believe in word "stable" ;-)
> It would be nice if they will be real stable (i.e. more fixes to
> the kernel tree).


this is a built in contradiction. to get more stable you want less
patches (at least you want to be VERY careful with which kinds of
patches you put in, which comes down to "less" generally)

Re: Stable 2.6.x.y kernel series...

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2005-06-03 at 23:43, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Just wanted to say in public that I think the stable 2.6.x.y kernel 
> series is working out quite well.  Kudos to the stable@kernel.org team 
> for a job well done.
> 
> The 2.6.x.y series is definitely filling a needed niche.

Ditto, and its been conservative enough that not only does it stay
pretty stable (one partition slip-up so far is very good indeed) its
small enough that most of the add on patches people use aren't breaking
against it either. Even the -ac set just keeps applying barring makefile
just fine so its saved me a ton of work.

Alan