Re: Development tree, PLEASE?

[Joe George <joeg@clearcore.com>]

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
> > > <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.

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

-
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/