Re: Development tree, PLEASE?

["Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Joe George wrote:

> Michael Loftis wrote:
> >
> >
> > --On January 20, 2006 4:29:44 PM +0000 James Courtier-Dutton
> > <James@superbug.co.uk> 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.

-- 
~Randy
-
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/