Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261955AbVACWsG (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:48:06 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261959AbVACWiZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:38:25 -0500 Received: from prgy-npn1.prodigy.com ([207.115.54.37]:24985 "EHLO oddball.prodigy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261930AbVACWZ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 17:25:56 -0500 Message-ID: <41D9C696.9080703@tmr.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:26:30 -0500 From: Bill Davidsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Bunk CC: William Lee Irwin III , William Lee Irwin III , Andries Brouwer , Maciej Soltysiak , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 References: <20050103001917.GO29332@holomorphy.com><20050103001917.GO29332@holomorphy.com> <20050103003857.GJ4183@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20050103003857.GJ4183@stusta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4775 Lines: 110 Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 04:19:17PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: > >>On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 01:42:11PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> >>>>This is not optimism. This is experience. Every ``stable'' kernel I've >>>>seen is a pile of incredibly stale code where vi'ing any file in it >>>>instantly reveals numerous months or years old bugs fixed upstream. >>>>What is gained in terms of reducing the risk of regressions is more >>>>than lost by the loss of critical examination and by a long longshot. >> >>On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 11:15:34PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >>>The main advantage with stable kernels in the good old days (tm) when 4 >>>and 6 were even numbers was that you knew if something didn't work, and >>>upgrading to a new kernel inside this stable kernel series had a >>>relatively low risk of new breakages. This meant one big migration every >>>few years and relatively easy upgrades between stable series kernels. >> >>This never saved anyone any pain. 2.4.x was not the stable kernel >>you're painting it to be until 2.4.20 or later, and by the time it >>became so the fixes for major regressions that occurred during 2.3.x >>were deemphasized and ignored for anything prior to 2.6.x. > > > I don't know which specific regressions you have in mind, but for > >>95% of the users 2.4 is a pretty usable kernel. > > >>On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 11:15:34PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >>>Nowadays in 2.6, every new 2.6 kernel has several regressions compared >>>to the previous one, and additionally obsolete but used code like >>>ipchains and devfs is scheduled for removal making upgrades even harder >>>for many users. >> >>My experience tells me that the number of regressions in 2.6.x compared >>to purportedly ``far stabler'' kernels is about the same or (gasp!) >>less. So the observable advantage of the ``frozen'' or ``stable'' model >>is less than or equal to zero. >> >>Frankly, kernel hacking is a difficult enough task (not that I >>personally find it so) that frivolous patches are not overwhemingly >>numerous. The ``barrier'' you're erecting is primarily acting as a >>barrier to fixes, not bugs. > > > My point is different. > > Perhaps the number of fixes for bugs equals the number of new bugs > in 2.6 . > > But it's not about the number of bugs alone. The question is the number > of regressions compared to a previous kernel in this series. > > 2.4 -> 2.6 is a major migration. > > 2.4.27 -> 2.4.28 is a kernel upgrade that is very unlikely to cause > problems. > > Compared to this, 2.6.9 -> 2.6.10 is much more likely to break an > existing setup that worked in 2.6.9 . > > >>On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 11:15:34PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >>>There's the point that most users should use distribution kernels, but >>>consider e.g. that there are poor souls with new hardware not supported >>>by the 3 years old 2.4.18 kernel in the stable part of your Debian >>>distribution. >> >>Again, the loss of critical examination far outweighs the purported >>defense against regressions. The most typical result of playing the fix >>backporting game for extended periods of time is numerous rounds of >>months-long bughunts for bugs whose fixes were merged years ago upstream. >>When the bugs are at long last found, they are discovered to fix the >>problems of hundreds of users until the next such problem surfaces. > > > The main question is, whether it might be possible to make a very short > 2.7 line (< 6 months). > > Imagine e.g. a feature freeze for 2.6 now. Then 2.7 starts with a > feature freeze for 2.7 one or two months later. During this time, all > the changes that do now flood into 2.6 would go into 2.7, and then > there are a few months of stabilizing 2.7 . > > It's quite the opposite of the current 2.6 model, but a quick 2.8 should > also avoid this problem you describe. > > Basically, in this proposal (if it started today), what was expected to > be called 2.6.11 will be called 2.7.0, and 2.6.11 will be a bugfix-only > kernel (considering the amount of changes more like the current -ac than > the latest -mm). The development policy is set by majority vote on a regular basis. However, since only one vote counts and Linus prefers it the way it is, we live with it. In my opinion the stable series is -ac, Alan actually runs the kernels. -- -bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me - 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/