Message-ID: <00c701c16bd2$e4b11800$0a00a8c0@intranet.mp3s.com>
Reply-To: "Sean Elble" <S_Elble@yahoo.com>
From: "Sean Elble" <S_Elble@yahoo.com>
To: <joeja@mindspring.com>, "John Alvord" <jalvo@mbay.net>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Springmail.105.1005596822.0.40719200@www.springmail.com>
Subject: Re: Testing Kernel Releases Before Being Released (Was Re: Re: loop back broken in 2.2.14)
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 18:36:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

Something definitely should be done to help "stabilize" the tree; it's not
really a big deal for most of us if something is broken, as you know there
will be a fix posted very soon after the release, _but_ bugs like these
don't exactly make Linux "look good" to the rest of the UNIX community. A
FreeBSD advocate might say "well, FreeBSD never does _that_". My suggestion
to help fix the problem would be to do what SGI does; have two seperate
trees that strive to stay as close to each other as possible, but one
becomes part of the "maintaince stream", where only bug fixes and the such
are added, and a "features stream", where actual new features are added in.
Take a look at some of the IRIX web pages at http://www.sgi.com/ for a
better idea of how that works, but believe me, it works. This would be in
addition to some sort of testing suite that each official kernel must pass
before it is released. With the growing number of (important/big) Linux
users, we must make sure each kernel is rock-solid before being released.
This is definitely more of a political topic than a technical one, but it
has to be addressed nonetheless.

-----------------------------------------------
Sean P. Elble
Editor, Writer, Co-Webmaster
ReactiveLinux.com (Formerly MaximumLinux.org)
http://www.reactivelinux.com/
elbles@reactivelinux.com
-----------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: <joeja@mindspring.com>
To: "John Alvord" <jalvo@mbay.net>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: loop back broken in 2.2.14


> I thought that the -pre would be the developer kernels, and that an actual
release (2.4.14) would have been somewhat tested.  I fully understand that a
'runtime' bug in the vm or some other system could arrise and that is one
thing. I also understand when a 'less used' driver like NTFS or VFAT breaks,
but to see bugs in the loop device in a 'stabilizing' kernel is something
that I thought I'd never see.
>
> Hmm anyone working on a regression testing tool for the kernel compilation
options??
>
> Also new features DO go into stable trees, there are many times when 2.3.x
was open that stuff was backported to 2.2.x.  I also heard that ext3 might
end up in 2.4.15, which I'd love to see happen (that and lm_sensors)
>
> I DO think that there needs to be a better way of handling some of these
small bugs.  Like maybe where the kernel is posted (in my case obtaining
from ftp.kernel.org) there should be a readme.first.2.4.14 for every version
of the kernel and in there things like this could be stated.  Simple one
line in loop.c commment out the two lines or remove the two lines with
deactivate_page.
>
> I don't mind 'testing', but how can you test what wont compile or what
compiles but does not run?
>
> Joe
> John Alvord <jalvo@mbay.net> wrote:
> > In developer-speak, stable == stablizing, which means that fixes go in
> but no new features. That can include monstrous fixes like the VM
> cleanup.
>
> When you are running developer kernels, you are on the kernel test
> team whether you know it or not, whether you think thats OK or hate
> it.
>
> For "stable" kernels, wait for the distributors like red hat/suse/etc.
> There is no way around serious testing which they perform.
>
> john
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 12:40:43 -0500, joeja@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >Okay, I can delete out those two lines to get loop working.
> >
> >Is 2.4.x really a stable tree?  Or should I wait for 2.4.25 before I
consider it really stable?
> >
> >> > François Cami wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > yes, see 2.4.15pre1
> >> > > warning, the iptables code in 2.4.15pre1 and pre2 seems broken.
> >> >
> >> > and further it is likely that pre3 fixes iptables code :)
> >> > (it looks like the patch got reverted)
> >>
> >> Actually it doesn't seem to be reverted,
> >> just reworked -
> >
> >hmm, spoke too soon -
> >
> >looks like they were reverted after all...
> >
> >cu
> >
> >jjs
> >
> >
> >-
> >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/
>
>
> -
> 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/

-
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/