From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751111AbWATRdH (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:33:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751115AbWATRdH (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:33:07 -0500 Received: from www.clearcore.com ([69.20.152.109]:59831 "EHLO sam.clearcore.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751111AbWATRdF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Jan 2006 12:33:05 -0500 Message-ID: <43D11ED0.4070809@clearcore.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:33:04 -0700 From: Joe George User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Randy.Dunlap" Cc: Michael Loftis , James Courtier-Dutton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Development tree, PLEASE? References: <43D10FF8.8090805@superbug.co.uk> <6769FDC09295B7E6078A5089@d216-220-25-20.dynip.modwest.com> <43D1159A.1070904@clearcore.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Randy.Dunlap wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Joe George wrote: > >> Michael Loftis wrote: >>> >>> --On January 20, 2006 4:29:44 PM +0000 James Courtier-Dutton >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It is unclear what you are really ranting about here. The "stable" kernel >>>> is stable or at least as stable as it is going to be. It is left to >>>> distros to make it even more stable. The interface to user land has not >>>> changed. >>>> If all you are ranting about is the move from devfs to udevd, then all >>>> the user land tools dealing with them have been updated already. >>> That's the nail on the head exactly. Why is this being done in an even >>> numbered kernel? This represents an API change that has knock on well >>> outside of the kernel, and should be done in development releases. Why >>> is it LK is the only major project (that I know of) that does this? >>> This is akin to apache changing the format of httpd.conf and saying in >>> say 1.3.38 and saying 'well we made the userland tools too.' >>> >>>> What is the real specific problem you are having? >>> Well there's a whole grab bag of them that I'll be getting to over the >>> next few months, but the most immediate is the fact that I've gotten new >>> hardware from a venduh that requires me to build a new Debian installer >>> and new debian kernels. I also have custom packages that depend on >>> devfs being there and now it's not. >>> >>> Yes I realise this change isn't out of the blue or anything, but it's in >>> a 'stable' kernel. Why bother calling 2.6 stable? We may as well have >>> stayed at 2.5 if this sort of thing is going to continue to be pulled. >>> >> I don't think that kernel developers are calling 2.6 a stable kernel >> series. There was an evolution into another development model without >> a corresponding change in the kernel numbering. I think the main >> reason the numbering wasn't changed was that it would break thousands >> of scripts people are using all over the world. >> >> What would be nice is to go, for example, from 2.6.17 to 3.1, 3.2, >> 3.3, ... And have what is currently called the stable series start at >> 3.1.1. This would make it clear that the 2.4/2.5 way of doing business >> is over. Someone would have to decide whether it is worth it to break >> all the scripts, however. > > The problems AFAICT are: > > 1. We did (for 2.5/2.4) or would (for 3.3/3.2) spend tons of time > in backporting new features or drivers from the development tree > to the stable tree. The current model saves that duplication > (or even worse if multiple distros do that same work). > > 2. If we did have a separate development tree, we would need > to clone Andrew. 8:) IMO there aren't a lot of choices for qualified > tree maintainers, although I'm sure we could find someone if we > had to. > > Anyway, to summarize, it's about manpower and efficient use of it. > I agree with all that and I would not want to change the way things work at all. I just wish that the number could be changed so the rest of the world would realize it changed and wouldn't keep saying 2.6 is a stable series. Joe