From: Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Subject: Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:33:30 +0300
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@osdl.org>,
       Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <200611090757.48744.a1426z@gawab.com> <4554AC12.6040407@osdl.org> <20061110085311.54fd65f2.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
In-Reply-To: <20061110085311.54fd65f2.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="windows-1256"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200611102233.30542.a1426z@gawab.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4534
Lines: 122

Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 08:42:58 -0800 Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > On 10/11/06, Al Boldi <a1426z@gawab.com> wrote:
> > >> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >> > There are bugfixes which are too big for stable or -rc releases,
> > >> > that are queued for 2.6.20. "Bugfix only" is a relative statement. 
> > >> 
> > >> > Do you include, new hardware support, new security api's, 
> > >> > performance fixes.  It
> > >> > gets to be real hard to decide, because these are the changes that
> > >> > often cause regressions; often one major bug fix causes two minor
> > >> > bugs.
> > >>
> > >> That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across; the 2.6 dev model
> > >> tries to
> > >> be two cycles in one, dev and stable, which yields an awkward catch22
> > >> situation.
> > >>
> > >> The only sane way forward in such a situation is to realize the
> > >> mistake and
> > >> return to the focused dev-only / stable-only model.
> > >>
> > >> This would probably involve pushing the current 2.6 kernel into 2.8
> > >> and starting 2.9 as a dev-cycle only, once 2.8 has structurally
> > >> stabilized.
> > >
> > > That was not what I was arguing for in the initial mail at all.
> > > I think the 2.6 model works very well in general. All I was pushing
> > > for was a single cycle focused mainly on bug fixes once in a while.

Temporary focusing won't help much, as you are dealing with people, who 
cannot be turned on and off like machines.

> > I like the current model fine. From a developer point of view:
>
> I don't think that it's great, but having even/odd stable/development
> is even worse.
>
> But I agree with Jesper and Andrew's comments in general, that
> we do have stability problems and we have a lack of people
> who are working on bugs.

The problem is not just simple bugs that surface, it's deeper than that.  
Deep structural problems is what plagues 2.6.

Only a focused model may deal with such problems.

> >   * More branches means having to fix and retest a bug more places.
> >      Workload goes up geometrically with number of versions.
> >      So most developers end up ignoring fixing more than 2 versions;
> >      anything more than -current and -stable are ignored.
> >  * Holding off the tide of changes doesn't work. It just leads to
> >     massive integration headaches.
> >  * Many bugs don't show up until kernel is run on wide range of
> > hardware, but kernel doesn't get exposed to wide range of hardware and
> > applications until after it is declared stable. It is a Catch-22.

No Catch-22 here. You just fix those to achieve stability.

It's when you start to flip-flop dev/stable/dev/stable/... that you get 
Catch-22, which inhibits stability.

> > The current stability range  of
> >            -subtree ... -mm ... 2.6.X ... 2.6.X.Y... 2.6.vendor
> >      works well for most people. The people it doesn't work for are
> > trying to get something for nothing. They want stability and the latest
> > kernel at the same time.

That's not the impression I got from Andrew's stats.

> > There are some things that do need working on:
> >   * Old bugs die, the bugzilla database needs a 6mo prune out.
> >
> >   * Bugzilla.kernel.org is underutilized and is only a small sample of
> > the real problems. Not sure if it is a training, user, behaviour issue
> > or just that bugzilla is crap.
>
> Behavior, ease of use vs. email.

Go email.  Maybe even automated.

> >   * Vendor bugs (that could be fixed) aren't forwarded to lkml or
> > bugzilla
>
> ack
>
> >   * LKML is an overloaded communication channel, do we need:
> >       linux-bugs@vger.kernel.org ?

No.

> Either that or lkml is/remains for bug reporting and we move development
> somewhere else.  Or my [repeated] preference:
>
> do development on specific mailing lists (although there would
> likely need to be a fallback list when it's not clear which mailing
> list should be used)

Yes.  Needs more thought, though.

> >    * Developers can't get (or afford to buy) the new hardware that
> > causes a lot of the pain. Just look at the number of bug reports due to
> > new flavors of motherboards, chipsets, etc. I spent 3mo on a bug that
> > took one day to fix once I got the hardware.
>
> Yep.


Thanks!

--
Al

-
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/