Given the frequency with which stabilization patches may be released, it
may not be practical to expect users to catch each release announcement
and download each patch.
Especially if small patches are released for stability, as one might
(hopefully) expect. Assuming that stability and "fix-it" patches will
generally be small (I'd hope). Seeing that the latest "fix-it" patch
is already at ".6", I'd have to load multiple patches to catch up from
2.6.11. I blinked my eyes and missed a few or 5 previous stability
patches, so I just downloaded the entire bzip...not a biggie, but
might create less load on servers if I didn't need to go through 6
patch applications to get current.
What do people think? Would it be desirable to have the stability
patchsets based against the base release (2.6.11 in this case)? I'll
already have downloaded 2.6.11 or the previous base release, but
with the frequency of patch releases, it might be more reasonable to
have patch revisions all patch against a base release rather than
having to download and apply what may grow to be a large number (but
small diff) against a base release?
Do people think patch-releases will get too big, or might it not
be easier to apply them to a constant downloaded copy of the base?
It's a bit amusing since I was one of those that complained about the
kernel stability, but 2.6.11 has been fairly solid for me, so, of course,
I'm 6 patches behind -- I don't think the patch release notifications
are getting as wide-spread press (or at least not reaching "/." :-)) as
the main releases get.
Linda
L. A. Walsh wrote:
> Given the frequency with which stabilization patches may be released, it
> may not be practical to expect users to catch each release announcement
> and download each patch.
>
> Especially if small patches are released for stability, as one might
> (hopefully) expect. Assuming that stability and "fix-it" patches will
> generally be small (I'd hope). Seeing that the latest "fix-it" patch
> is already at ".6", I'd have to load multiple patches to catch up from
> 2.6.11. I blinked my eyes and missed a few or 5 previous stability
> patches, so I just downloaded the entire bzip...not a biggie, but
> might create less load on servers if I didn't need to go through 6
> patch applications to get current.
>
> What do people think? Would it be desirable to have the stability
> patchsets based against the base release (2.6.11 in this case)? I'll
> already have downloaded 2.6.11 or the previous base release, but
> with the frequency of patch releases, it might be more reasonable to
> have patch revisions all patch against a base release rather than
> having to download and apply what may grow to be a large number (but
> small diff) against a base release?
>
> Do people think patch-releases will get too big, or might it not
> be easier to apply them to a constant downloaded copy of the base?
>
> It's a bit amusing since I was one of those that complained about the
> kernel stability, but 2.6.11 has been fairly solid for me, so, of course,
> I'm 6 patches behind -- I don't think the patch release notifications
> are getting as wide-spread press (or at least not reaching "/." :-)) as
> the main releases get.
After some initial discussions, the patches now are generated against
2.6.x.0, so to get to 2.6.11.6, you only need to download and apply
one patchset...
--
~Randy
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 14:51 -0800, L. A. Walsh wrote:
> Given the frequency with which stabilization patches may be released, it
> may not be practical to expect users to catch each release announcement
> and download each patch.
I highly suggest using ketchup for your kernel patching needs:
http://www.selenic.com/ketchup/
Here, I have a plain 2.6.11 kernel that I upgrade to 2.6.11.4. I then
want it to go right to 2.6.11.6.
dave@kernel:~/temp/linux-2.6.11$ ketchup 2.6.11.4
2.6.11 -> 2.6.11.4
Applying patch-2.6.11.4.bz2
dave@kernel:~/temp/linux-2.6.11$ ketchup 2.6.11.6
2.6.11.4 -> 2.6.11.6
Applying patch-2.6.11.4.bz2 -R
Applying patch-2.6.11.6.bz2
dave@kernel:~/temp/linux-2.6.11$
BTW, it also keeps a cache of local patches, and downloads if needed.
So, you'll see the downloads the first time that you use it for any
given patch.
Does that help?
-- Dave
* L. A. Walsh ([email protected]) wrote:
> Given the frequency with which stabilization patches may be released, it
> may not be practical to expect users to catch each release announcement
> and download each patch.
>
> Especially if small patches are released for stability, as one might
> (hopefully) expect. Assuming that stability and "fix-it" patches will
> generally be small (I'd hope). Seeing that the latest "fix-it" patch
> is already at ".6", I'd have to load multiple patches to catch up from
> 2.6.11. I blinked my eyes and missed a few or 5 previous stability
> patches, so I just downloaded the entire bzip...not a biggie, but
> might create less load on servers if I didn't need to go through 6
> patch applications to get current.
The patches on kernel.org in v2.6/ are already against the base (i.e.
patch-2.6.11.6.bz2 is against 2.6.11). The patches in v2.6/incr/
are incremental between -stable releases (i.e. patch-2.6.11.5-6.bz2 is
against 2.6.11.5).
thanks,
-chris
Chris Wright wrote:
> The patches on kernel.org in v2.6/ are already against the base (i.e.
> patch-2.6.11.6.bz2 is against 2.6.11). The patches in v2.6/incr/
> are incremental between -stable releases (i.e. patch-2.6.11.5-6.bz2 is
> against 2.6.11.5).
----
I see. I had looked at the "Changelog" page on the http://www.kernel.org home
page and only saw changes from 2.6.11.5->2.6.11.6 documented. I thought that
the Changelog documented the changes that were in the patch.
Maybe Changlog's that only document the current increment should be in the
"incr" directory as well and be named "Changelog-2.6.11.5-6" (for the current
change log, while a cumulative change log from the base version should
be kept in the v2.6 dir?
I think having the Changelog link on the main page only documenting
the latest "incr", but having the patch containing everything from the base is
confusing. Am I the only one who might expect the Changelog to document what is
in the given increment, but the associated patch includes everything since the base?
It's a "nit", I know, but I prefer having the change-log and patch to match
w/respect to content.
Linda