public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
@ 2001-01-05 17:32 Wayne.Brown
  2001-01-05 18:50 ` Matthew D. Pitts
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Wayne.Brown @ 2001-01-05 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Mark Hahn, linux-kernel



Well, I got off linux-kernel while 2.0.3x was still current, and didn't return
until a few months ago.  Apparently the definitions have changed over the past
few years.

On another subject, is all this new "testXX-preYY" stuff over now that 2.4.0 is
out, and will we be going back to the standard x.y.z numbering scheme?  Or is
this another thing that's changed for good?  I really miss being able to apply
all the patches at once with linux/scripts/patchkernel.

Wayne




Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> on 01/05/2001 11:15:36 AM

To:   Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec@Altec
cc:   phillips@innominate.de (Daniel Phillips),
      hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca (Mark Hahn),
      linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Subject:  Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions



> In other words, there's no longer any such thing as a "stable" branch.  The
> whole point of having separate production and development branches was to have
> one in which each succeeding patch could be counted upon to be more reliable

By your personal definition of stable 2.0.3x is the current stable kernel.

Alan





-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
@ 2001-01-08 15:36 Wayne.Brown
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Wayne.Brown @ 2001-01-08 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Weinehall; +Cc: Nick Holloway, linux-kernel



Cool!  I remember reading about the --dry-run option in the patch man page once,
and thinking it would be useful, but then I forgot all about it without ever
using it.  (Patch is one of those programs I've been using for so many years
that my fingers type it automatically and I never think to check out other
options.)  Thanks for reminding me.

I always rename my directories to the current patchlevel, too.  But in this case
it didn't help me, because I wasn't sure whether the prerelease-to-final was
supposed to be applied to 2.4.0-prerelease INSTEAD OF prerelease-diff or IN
ADDITION to it.  (After all, -test1 through test-12 all had to be applied in
order, but the various -testX-pre1, -pre2, etc. patches we've seen always had to
be reversed before the next one could be applied.)  Rather than take the time to
investigate, I took a guess, and obviously guessed wrong about this one.  :-)

Wayne




David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> on 01/08/2001 05:07:08 AM

To:   Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec@Altec
cc:   Nick Holloway <Nick.Holloway@pyrites.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Subject:  Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions



You know, there are reasons why patch has an option called --dry-run...

bzcat patch-2.4.0.bz2 | patch -p1 --dry-run
[and if everything goes well]
bzcat patch-2.4.0.bz2 | patch -p1
[will be relatively painless, as the files will be cached by now...]

Is the way I usually apply patches.

Oh, and after applying a patch I always rename the directory to match
the version of the patch. This way I always know if I have to unapply
any pre-patches/test-patches/whatever.



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
@ 2001-01-08  4:52 Wayne.Brown
  2001-01-08 11:07 ` David Weinehall
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Wayne.Brown @ 2001-01-08  4:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nick Holloway; +Cc: linux-kernel



Actually, I have another reason for using patch-kernel, besides being
inexperienced or lazy:  being weird.  :-)  For some reason, I have an aversion
to downloading complete kernels, and just grab the patches.  That's usually OK,
because I apply each patch one at a time, within a few hours after it comes out.
But once in a while I mess up and have to start over -- like a few days ago,
when I forgot to reverse prelease-diff before trying to apply
2.4.0-prelease-to-final.  I got the kernel source tree hosed up so badly that I
decided to blow it all away and get a clean copy.  Instead of doing the sensible
thing -- getting a fresh copy of 2.4.0 -- I untarred 2.2.16 (the most recent
tarball I had), reverse-patched it down to 2.2.8, applied patch-2.2.8-to-2.3.0,
used patch-kernel to get up to 2.3.51, then applied the patches for 2.3.99-pre1
through -pre9 and 2.4.0-test1 through -test12, and finally 2.4.0-prelease and
2.4.0-prerelease-to-final.  Sure, it's insane, but it's not as tedious as it
sounds, since I put together a script to do all this (and it doesn't take all
that long on my Pentium III, especially if I shut down X first).  Anyway, I've
kind of been hoping that now that 2.4.0 is out, maybe future patches will go
back to the x.y.z format so I could just let patch-kernel do everything.

Wayne




Nick.Holloway@pyrites.org.uk (Nick Holloway) on 01/06/2001 04:15:53 AM

To:   linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)

Subject:  Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions



In <862569CB.0070DDEE.00@smtpnotes.altec.com> Wayne.Brown@altec.com writes:
> Either I'm blind, or especially dense today, or both (quite possible :-) but I
> don't see any reference in patch-kernel to the extra version information.
> EXTRAVERSION is defined in the kernel Makefile, and I tried using the script
> found in the 2.4.0-test1 source like this:
>
> patch-kernel /usr/src/linux /pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/test-kernels
>
> but the test-2 and following patches are not applied.  All I get is "Current
> kernel version is 2.4.0."  What am I missing?

The distributed version of patch-kernel has only ever known about the
"standard" progression x.y.z => x.y.z+1.  This all gets horribly broken
when Linus gets imaginative with his kernel numbering.

I have said before that I thought this was OK, because the people that
need to cope with the EXTRAVERSION guff are people on the development
branch, and should be able to patch the kernel themselves.  The main
users of patch-kernel are less experienced people.

However, this does conflict with the aim of getting users into testing
kernels late in the development branch cycle.  It also affects people
like me who are lazy.

I don't think that getting the kernel version to support the naming scheme
du-jour will work, as this would require Linus to update patch-kernel
when he dreams up a new scheme -- and Linus is the one person I'm fairly
sure does not use it!

For myself, I have a version of patch-kernel that does know how to deal
with the wacky naming versions (because I'm lazy).  In future I'll make
this available to anyone that wants to download it for their own use,
but I won't push to get it included.

A (temporary) location for the current version is:

     http://www.alfie.demon.co.uk/download/patch-kernel

--
 `O O'  | Nick.Holloway@pyrites.org.uk
// ^ \\ | http://www.pyrites.org.uk/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/





-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
@ 2001-01-05 20:33 Wayne.Brown
  2001-01-06 10:15 ` Nick Holloway
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Wayne.Brown @ 2001-01-05 20:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matthew D. Pitts; +Cc: linux-kernel



Either I'm blind, or especially dense today, or both (quite possible :-) but I
don't see any reference in patch-kernel to the extra version information.
EXTRAVERSION is defined in the kernel Makefile, and I tried using the script
found in the 2.4.0-test1 source like this:

patch-kernel /usr/src/linux /pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/test-kernels

but the test-2 and following patches are not applied.  All I get is "Current
kernel version is 2.4.0."  What am I missing?

Wayne




"Matthew D. Pitts" <mpitts@suite224.net> on 01/05/2001 12:50:26 PM

To:   Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec@Altec
cc:   linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Subject:  Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions




Wayne,

The versions of patch-kernel included in 2.3/2.4 support extra version
information, so patches from Linus and others (i.e. Alan Cox) can be applied
if proper information is placed in the kernel Makefile.

Matthew D. Pitts
mpitts@suite224.net






-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
@ 2001-01-05 17:11 Wayne.Brown
  2001-01-05 17:15 ` Alan Cox
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Wayne.Brown @ 2001-01-05 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Mark Hahn, linux-kernel



In other words, there's no longer any such thing as a "stable" branch.  The
whole point of having separate production and development branches was to have
one in which each succeeding patch could be counted upon to be more reliable
than the last.  If new development is going into the "stable" kernels, then
there's no way to be certain that the latest patches don't have more bugs than
the earlier ones, at least not without thoroughly testing them.  And if testing
is necessary, then we might as well just use the development kernels for
everything, because we have to test them anyway.

Wayne




Daniel Phillips <phillips@innominate.de> on 01/05/2001 06:52:00 AM

To:   Mark Hahn <hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>,
      linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
cc:    (bcc: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec)

Subject:  Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions



Mark Hahn wrote:
> > I personaly do not trust the 2.4.x kernel entirely yet, and would prefer to
> ...
> > afraid that this may partialy criple 2.2 driver development.
>
> egads!  how can there be "development" on a *stable* kernel line?
>
> maybe this is the time to reconsider terminology/policy:
> does "stable" mean "bugfixes only"?
> or does it mean "development kernel for conservatives"?

It means development kernel for those who don't have enough time to
debug the main kernel as well as their own project.  The stable branch
tends to be *far* better documented than the bleeding edge branch.  Try
to find documentation on the all-important page cache, for example.  It
makes a whole lot of sense to develop in the stable branch, especially
for new kernel developers, providing, of course, that the stable branch
has the basic capabilities you need for your project.

Alan isn't telling anybody which branch to develop in - he's telling
people what they have to do if they want their code in his tree.  This
means that when you develop in the stable branch you've got an extra
step to do at the end of your project: port to the unstable branch.
This only has to be done once and your code *will* get cleaned up a lot
in the process.  (It's amazing how the prospect of merging 500 lines of
rejected patch tends to concentrate the mind.)  I'd even suggest another
step after that: port your unstable version back to the stable branch,
and both versions will be cleaned up.

--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/





-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
@ 2001-01-05  3:50 Michael D. Crawford
  2001-01-05  8:29 ` Miles Lane
  2001-01-05 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Michael D. Crawford @ 2001-01-05  3:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel

You might find it interesting to read the section entitled "Monkeywrenching the
Virtual Machine" towards the end of "Why We Should All Test the New Linux
Kernel".  It's in my second comment after the main article:

http://advogato.org/article/224.html

I understand Linus' desire to have more widespread testing done on the kernel,
and certainly he can accomplish that by labeling some random build as the new
stable version.  But I think a better choice would have been to advocate testing
more widely - don't just announce it to the linux-kernel list, get on National
Public Radio, the Linux Journal and Slashdot and stuff.  

Don't just announce the existence of a kernel that people ought to test, but hit
the streets and provide advice and assistance and encouragement to those who
might help out.

That's the kind of thing I was trying to do in my article above.

My concern is that declaring this kernel as production and stable, with patching
still happening by the minute, is that a lot of people who don't know what
they're doing will slap it into machines they depend on for their livelihood,
and a lot of distributions will quickly adopt it in order to be perceived as
competitive.  The very first experience many people will ever have with Free
Software will boot off Linux 2.4.0 - not 2.4.1, because some distro will want to
be the first.

You might think this is great because of all the extra testing the new users
will do but I assert that it isn't.  The environment for Linux is quite
different these days than when 2.2 or 2.0 were released.

A lot of the people who will be using it are not technically savvy people, and
many of those who do know technology depend on its reliability for the
profitability of large businesses but may not read Linus' message that indicates
this is really just for testing.

It would be really bad if this particular version of the kernel turns out to
have a lot of problems.

I guess you can get more people testing by releasing it yourselves than I can
with my websites saying people should test, but I feel that having the testing
done by people who know what they're getting into and have some guidance is a
wiser course of action.

If you're in the neighborhood, please stop by:

http://linuxquality.sunsite.dk

Mike


-- 
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc. - Expert Software Development and Consulting
http://www.goingware.com/
crawford@goingware.com

   Tilting at Windmills for a Better Tomorrow.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions
@ 2001-01-05  2:41 Alan Cox
  2001-01-05  3:27 ` Nicholas Knight
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2001-01-05  2:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel


Linux 2.4 is now out, it is also what people should be concentrating on first
when issuing production drivers and driver updates. Effective from this point
2.2 driver submissions or major driver updates will only be accepted if the
same code is also available for 2.4.

Someone has to do the merging otherwise, and it isnt going to be me...

Alan

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-01-10  1:40 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-01-05 17:32 Change of policy for future 2.2 driver submissions Wayne.Brown
2001-01-05 18:50 ` Matthew D. Pitts
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-01-08 15:36 Wayne.Brown
2001-01-08  4:52 Wayne.Brown
2001-01-08 11:07 ` David Weinehall
2001-01-05 20:33 Wayne.Brown
2001-01-06 10:15 ` Nick Holloway
2001-01-05 17:11 Wayne.Brown
2001-01-05 17:15 ` Alan Cox
2001-01-05 17:23   ` Christoph.Hellwig.
     [not found]     ` <hchÀcaldera.de>
2001-01-05 17:31       ` Alan Cox
2001-01-05  3:50 Michael D. Crawford
2001-01-05  8:29 ` Miles Lane
2001-01-05 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-01-09 14:49   ` Hubert Mantel
2001-01-09 14:54     ` Alan Cox
2001-01-09 23:49       ` Jakob Østergaard
2001-01-10  0:02         ` Linus Torvalds
2001-01-10  0:33     ` Ingo Molnar
2001-01-10  1:03       ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-01-10  1:17         ` Ingo Molnar
2001-01-10  1:40           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2001-01-05  2:41 Alan Cox
2001-01-05  3:27 ` Nicholas Knight
2001-01-05  4:23   ` Mark Hahn
2001-01-05 12:52     ` Daniel Phillips
2001-01-05  6:38   ` Tim Riker
2001-01-05  6:57   ` Andre Tomt
2001-01-05  7:30     ` Gerhard Mack
2001-01-05 11:46   ` Rik van Riel

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox