Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Ruth Ivimey-Cook]

At 16:06 29/03/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>sure; every delta is critical for someone.  but why do you think
>stability comes from slowing or refusing deltas?  or perhaps you're
>just saying that you want to see a longer testing interval?

if delta == fix for an identified bug, then refusing them is obviously bad, 
assuming the bugfix is itself ok

if delta == some (random) change someone thought would be nice, then 
stability is not normally improved by adding them

I'm not sure what 'testing interval' you refer to?

>personally, I think there should be alpha (linus), beta (marcello)
>and gamma (maybe alan) streams, since some people really do seem
>to think marcello is moving too fast (he's way to slow for me.).
>or maybe it should be l-ac-m (well, it pretty much is, though I don't
>believe there's any formal analysis of how well-tested a delta is
>in ac's tree.)

I was under the impression that a 2.2.x/2.4.x2.6.x kernel was changed on 
the premise that stability and correctness had high priority, and that 
2.3.x/2.5.x/2.4.7.x were built on the premise that introducing new 
features, optimizing and restructuring code, and addressing weaknesses had 
high priority.

I guess, though, if someone said : 2.4.x is feature-complete: you can 
_only_ fix bugs in it, then we'd have a revolt :-)   So perhaps you're 
right, and we need three paths:

  - a 2.5-like path, where anything sensible goes
  - a 2.4-like path, where a lot goes, but nothing too big :-)
  - a new path, where stability is paramount.

Of course, you could say 'why don't I use 2.2.20, if I'm that worried'. 
Well, 2.4. has a bunch of features (e.g. iptables, decent USB & ATM 
support, ) that I need or want badly enough that I'm prepared to put up 
with some hassle. So currently I'm trying to find a kernel that is good 
enough to leave alone. 2.4.18-rc1 is pretty good so far, but looking 
through the patches btw. rc1 and final, and .19, I wonder which of the 
fixed bugs I might hit next. Problem is, I have been looking for the 'good' 
kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm 
starting to wonder when it might get here.

>finally, noone has enough time for as much testing as they should do.
>more trees just make this worse.  if you're concerned about the stability
>of the stable branch, are you doing something to improve testing?

I try. I don't have a huge amount of time, but I'm using 2.4.18-rc1 on a 
gateway box that is ADSL connected through a USB SpeedTouch; sometimes, the 
ADSL IP link *just dies*; I am running with lots of logging to find out 
more, and am slowly looking through the sources by hand to try to find 
problems 'in my head'. It is hard going, and not any easier for the 
SpeedTouch firmware being closed.

Anyway, enough!

Ruth

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[mtopper]

> ...I have been looking for the 'good' 
> kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm 
> starting to wonder when it might get here.

Personally, 2.4.16 works like a charm for me. I guess I'm the only one, am
I? :-)

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only

[Henning P. Schmiedehausen]

Ruth Ivimey-Cook <Ruth.Ivimey-Cook@ivimey.org> writes:

>fixed bugs I might hit next. Problem is, I have been looking for the 'good' 
>kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm 
>starting to wonder when it might get here.

2.4.19-pre4-ac2 is the first kernel since ages that is able to boot up on
an Intel SC5x00 server with SDS2 board without either

- losing one processor
- losing one gig of RAM
- locking up in highmem
- locking up when loading the GDTH driver

2x 1,13GHz PIII Processor, 2 GB RAM, ServerWorks OSB5 chipset, GDTH
8523RZ controller driving four 36 GB U160 disks). Nice little box for
kernel compiles (actually it is a java application server running
apache / tomcat and various webapps, but until our stability issues
are ironed out I can play with it). 2.4.19pre4ac2 survived the
stress-kernel test from VA Linux for hours. Something no other kernel
in the 2.4 series was able to do. Now if I could please get a sensor
driver for the ADM1026...

	Regards
		Henning
-- 
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen       -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH     hps@intermeta.de

Am Schwabachgrund 22  Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0   info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof     Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20   

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Pablo Alcaraz]

mtopper@xarch.tu-graz.ac.at wrote:

>>...I have been looking for the 'good' 
>>kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm 
>>starting to wonder when it might get here.
>>
>
>Personally, 2.4.16 works like a charm for me. I guess I'm the only one, am
>I? :-)
>
>
>-
>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/
>
>

I use 2.4.16 kernel for my production machines and I love it (well, swap 
a bit with 256mb ram, but it's right with 1gb, 128mb, 512mb, 32mb, 
etc... 256mb is a bad number for its vm I think)

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Rene Rebe]

Hi.

I think that you used exactly the worser kernels between the good ones
... ;-) 2.4.16 was really good and 2.4.18 is, too. 2.4.19-pre5 looks
also very promissing, so far.

On: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 08:07:12 -0300,
    Pablo Alcaraz <pabloa@laotraesquina.com.ar> wrote:
> mtopper@xarch.tu-graz.ac.at wrote:
> 
> >>...I have been looking for the 'good' 
> >>kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm 
> >>starting to wonder when it might get here.
> >>
> >
> >Personally, 2.4.16 works like a charm for me. I guess I'm the only one, am
> >I? :-)
> >
> >
> >-
> >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/
> >
> >
> 
> I use 2.4.16 kernel for my production machines and I love it (well, swap 
> a bit with 256mb ram, but it's right with 1gb, 128mb, 512mb, 32mb, 
> etc... 256mb is a bad number for its vm I think)

k33p h4ck1n6
  René

--  
René Rebe (Registered Linux user: #248718 <http://counter.li.org>)

eMail:    rene.rebe@gmx.net
          rene@rocklinux.org

Homepage: http://drocklinux.dyndns.org/rene/

Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be
charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Erik Ljungström]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:11:07 +0200 (CEST)
Rene Rebe <rene.rebe@gmx.net> wrote:

> Hi.
> 
> I think that you used exactly the worser kernels between the good ones
> ... ;-) 2.4.16 was really good and 2.4.18 is, too. 2.4.19-pre5 looks
> also very promissing, so far.

What's wrong with the 2.4.17 kernel? I have'n had a better one since the 2.2.19 :)
> 
> On: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 08:07:12 -0300,
>     Pablo Alcaraz <pabloa@laotraesquina.com.ar> wrote:
> > mtopper@xarch.tu-graz.ac.at wrote:
> > 
> > >>...I have been looking for the 'good' 
> > >>kernel for a while: trying 2.4.6, 2.4.8, 2.4.15, 2.4.17, 2.4.18rc1 -- I'm 
> > >>starting to wonder when it might get here.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Personally, 2.4.16 works like a charm for me. I guess I'm the only one, am
> > >I? :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >-
> > >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/
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > I use 2.4.16 kernel for my production machines and I love it (well, swap 
> > a bit with 256mb ram, but it's right with 1gb, 128mb, 512mb, 32mb, 
> > etc... 256mb is a bad number for its vm I think)
> 
> k33p h4ck1n6
>   René
> 
> --  
> René Rebe (Registered Linux user: #248718 <http://counter.li.org>)
> 
> eMail:    rene.rebe@gmx.net
>           rene@rocklinux.org
> 
> Homepage: http://drocklinux.dyndns.org/rene/
> 
> Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be
> charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my
> address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.
> 
> -
> 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/


-- 
--
Best regards, Erik

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Rene Rebe]

On: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:59:18 +0200,
    Erik Ljungström <insight@metalab.unc.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:11:07 +0200 (CEST)
> Rene Rebe <rene.rebe@gmx.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi.
> > 
> > I think that you used exactly the worser kernels between the good ones
> > ... ;-) 2.4.16 was really good and 2.4.18 is, too. 2.4.19-pre5 looks
> > also very promissing, so far.
> 
> What's wrong with the 2.4.17 kernel? I have'n had a better one since the 2.2.19 :)

It procuded unresolved symbols in several configs and oopsed in the
ipv6 support ... - I did not experienced this with 2.4.16 or 2.4.18
;-) - I did not saw 2.2 kernels for years ;-)

The only problems I had with 2.4 were the NFS+reiserfs and
NFS+smy-links problems and the obvious broken 2.4.9 (or was it .10?)
and 2.4.15 ...

k33p h4ck1n6
  René

--  
René Rebe (Registered Linux user: #248718 <http://counter.li.org>)

eMail:    rene.rebe@gmx.net
          rene@rocklinux.org

Homepage: http://drocklinux.dyndns.org/rene/

Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be
charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Mike Fedyk]

On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 09:55:34PM +0200, Rene Rebe wrote:
> The only problems I had with 2.4 were the NFS+reiserfs and
> NFS+smy-links problems and the obvious broken 2.4.9 (or was it .10?)
> and 2.4.15 ...

2.4.{10,11,15}

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Daniel E. Shipton]

> What's wrong with the 2.4.17 kernel? I have'n had a better one since the 2.2.19 :)
I'm with you on that....i put it on one machine and threw away the
redhat rpm to find that i needed it a week later for another machine and
redhat had released their 2.4.18. So had to make it by hand for a
change. 2.4.17 does well at everything while not giving oopses.
also alan's 2.4.13 was really good too.

daniel.e.shipton

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Ruth Ivimey-Cook]

At 16:27 29/03/2002 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>Its somewhat naiive. If you have a hole in a bridge and someone tells you
>that for stability you can only paint the bridge and tighten bolts you will
>still have a very broke bridge. Ditto with software.
>
>2.2.20 is stable because its been slowly refined to that and is now at the
>point where on the hole the painting and bolt tightening is all that needs
>doing. The 2.4 tree suffered serious earthquake damage in 2.4.10 which
>hasn't entirely been fixed yet.

Please note I didn't say .20 *and all future versions*. I asked because it 
just seems to me that while kernel 2.4 is definitely improving, it is being 
pulled hard in 2 directions -- towards stability and towards 2.5.

I was hoping that, if we had a release that was focused on stability, the 
current code base might get a longer testing phase, resulting in a better 
code base overall.

I have been involved in professional software engineering for many years -- 
I know how things go and how basic structure affects things. However, I 
also know (from my own experience) that bug fixing is not nearly as 
exciting as developing some new feature, or getting a chunk of code "just 
right", when it worked ok to begin with.  My commercial experience is that, 
at the end of a project, introducing significant changes of any type is 
something you do rarely and with great care; even the best engineer 
sometimes misses an important side-issue and messes up.

I guess I might be digging a hole here, but I'm trying hard to make Linux 
better for us all.

Ruth

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Rik van Riel]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote:

> Can we celebrate getting to 2.4.20 with a really super-stable version of
> the kernel, by only admitting patches that fix known and significant
> bugs (that is, no new features, no more optimisations, no backports, no
> "it's only a line" fixes)?
>
> It would help 2.4 a lot, I think.

Not correct, you cannot have bugfixes-only if there are still
large structural things which need changes to work right on
some machines, eg. the VM.

regards,

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Alan Cox]

> > point where on the hole the painting and bolt tightening is all that needs
> > doing. The 2.4 tree suffered serious earthquake damage in 2.4.10 which
> > hasn't entirely been fixed yet.
> 
> Okay...ah...in this case: What, precisely, *is* the problem since 2.4.10 ?

Linus changed the VM and chunks of the block layer in 2.4.10, that set back
stability work very seriously. It was a mistake but it happened, and most
of the repair work is done now. Not all of it. We've also gained things like
file system direct I/O as a result, so long term it may pay off, even
though it should have gone into 2.5 for stabilizing first

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[mtopper]

> [Alan:] 
> 2.2.20 is stable because its been slowly refined to that and is now at the
> point where on the hole the painting and bolt tightening is all that needs
> doing. The 2.4 tree suffered serious earthquake damage in 2.4.10 which
> hasn't entirely been fixed yet.
> 

Okay...ah...in this case: What, precisely, *is* the problem since 2.4.10 ?

Yours, MT

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Alan Cox]

> > It would help 2.4 a lot, I think.
> 
> I'd prefer that too! We've always cheered these x.y.20 versions for being
> so stable (2.2.20 comes to mind). I hope we can keep up the tradition *g*

Its somewhat naiive. If you have a hole in a bridge and someone tells you
that for stability you can only paint the bridge and tighten bolts you will
still have a very broke bridge. Ditto with software.

2.2.20 is stable because its been slowly refined to that and is now at the
point where on the hole the painting and bolt tightening is all that needs
doing. The 2.4 tree suffered serious earthquake damage in 2.4.10 which
hasn't entirely been fixed yet.

Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[mtopper]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Ruth Ivimey-Cook wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> Can we celebrate getting to 2.4.20 with a really super-stable version of 
> the kernel, by only admitting patches that fix known and significant bugs 
> (that is, no new features, no more optimisations, no backports, no "it's 
> only a line" fixes)?
> 
> It would help 2.4 a lot, I think.
> 

I'd prefer that too! We've always cheered these x.y.20 versions for being
so stable (2.2.20 comes to mind). I hope we can keep up the tradition *g*

Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Ruth Ivimey-Cook]

Folks,

Can we celebrate getting to 2.4.20 with a really super-stable version of 
the kernel, by only admitting patches that fix known and significant bugs 
(that is, no new features, no more optimisations, no backports, no "it's 
only a line" fixes)?

It would help 2.4 a lot, I think.

Ruth