Slashdot Mirror
2.6 and 2.7 Release Management
An anonymous reader writes: "A recent discussion on the Linux kernel mailing list debated whether the upcoming 2.6 and 2.7 kernels should be released at the same time instead of first stabilizing the 2.6 'stable tree' then branching the 2.7 'development tree.' The theory behind the proposition is to keep "new" things from going into 2.6 once it is released, focusing instead only on making it stable. On the flip side of this argument is the possibility that with a 2.7 kernel in development, there will be too little focus on stabilizing the 2.6 kernel.
The resulting debate makes for an interesting read."
I would release them at the same time. Just as now, with 2.4 and 2.5, there are people who are very good at stabilizing current code, and people very good at developing new code. Some folks can't stand working on new things when the old need work, and vice versa.
I see this as having two benifits. First, it will help with the ``Most things work pretty well---let's go ahead and release it.'' attitude. The 2.4 series has only recently gotten stable enough to reliably use in a production environment, and not everyone agrees on that even.
Second, it will allow people to focus on what they are good at. The 2.6 series will mature much faster without adding new features in every release. Sure, there are bound to be a few gotchas, but if the focus is on stabilizing the code, they will be out by the 2.6.3 or 2.6.4 release. At the same time, people will be adding to 2.7, which should mean that there is much less time between stable kernel series releases.
I'm all for it!
--Wyatt
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
See, to me when someone calls it a "stable release", that means it's already been stabilized. Sure, you're going to have the occasional bug fix here and there, but actual "stabilization" should've been done in the 2.5.99 range, ie. the previous development branch. Once the stable tree is released, there shouldn't be a need to stabilize it and branching the new development tree right then makes sense. There should not be an "development" per se in the stable release after that, only the occasional maintenance.
.0 release of the kernel.
If the kernel maintainers would just grasp this one simple point, maybe this issue wouldn't be one, and maybe people wouldn't laugh at the
If 2.7 begins before 2.6 is stable aren't we in danger of seeing a win9x syndrome in that bugs will live for ever and instead of being fixed they will be coded around. I fear very much the long term affects on the kernel and in turn Linux if the trees are split prior to a stabilization period. I am a developer, not on this level, but I have seen the affects of splitting a code base simply to continue developing and at the same time trying to patch existing "production code" and then port things back and forth. It is a very bad idea!! Usually what happens is things don't get back ported they are only provided doing a major upgrade, again the microsoft way of bug fixing.
Granted, you will always have some cross patching, however I think the idea of building off of a clean base is very important. For example, you would not put new tires on your car if the engine is not running, right?
Essentially, I think the issue here is one of knowing the base is clean versus drudging on in the dark despite the fact that you have been offered a lantern.
To put this most bluntly I would call this Microsoft syndrome. As I said before win9x is the perfect example of a system that was never stabilized rather it was constantly released to the unsuspecting public as upgrades which where really bug fixes and the monkeys went back to the keyboards never addressing issues raised by numerous consumer requests on the so called production release because the devel team would rather work on that new feature because it is more interesting than maintaining the existing code base.
I am being harsh here I know, but I am trying to view this in the long term. I feel that this would weaken the kernel and as I said weaken Linux which would in the end at least decrease corporate trust in the stability of Linux or at worst give M$ what it wants, Linux's death,
Maybe I am extreme, feel free to beat me but I know you have to have a clean starting point before you can move forward otherwise you will constantly be taking steps backwards which eventually leads to stagnation and death.
Just my thoughts
This is true. The VM that came with 2.4 was so broken that we were seeing systems go down with massive data loss almost within hours of extensive use.
The old VM has 4 different major bugs:
1. Concurrent processes could not place deadlocks on sibling process in SMP mode.
2. Utilization of VM code on tread process in UP and SMP systems were so bad (under load - ( specially when the 4gig mem system was used )), that more preformance would have been got by running the 2.0 series rather than 2.4's VM.
3. No checks were placed in thread corruption and bucket fill code, which caused other nice things under load.
4. The enter beast was so unyeilding, it was known that the only one person who ever understood it, had to keep a journal just to keep track of the beast (Seriously). This was one of the major reasons that ticked off Linus and I believe the reason why he pushed the new VM.
But the 2.4 series was a major testbest. The moment we released it without having a 2.5 out, ppl started testing 2.4 in much more demand than they did the previous development series. This gave feedback in a week that we could not have got in six months for the development kernel.
The new VM has been stabilized and it's working wonderfully, if you use any kernel above 2.4.16, you should be fine.
jr
[ ...Putting on my "politically incorrect" hat... ]
It's a common Open Source Software problem: there is the last release, and there is the developement branch.
Developers would all prefer that you use the developement branch, report bugs against *that*, provide patches for the bugs against *that*, do all new work in the context of *that*.
But it's not how things work, outside of an Ivory Tower.
In the real world, people who are using the system are using it as a platform to do real work *unrelated to developement of the system itself*.
I know! Unbelieveable! Heretics! Sacreligios!
FreeBSD has this disease, and has it bad. It very seldom accepts patches against it's last release, even in the developement branch of the last release, if those patches attempt to solve problems that make the submitted work look suspiciously like "developement". The cut-off appears to be "it fixes it in -stable, but would be hard to port to -current; do it in -current, as your price of admission, and back-port it instead, even if you end up with identical code".
The only real answer is to keep the releases fairly close together -- and *end-of-life* the previous release *as soon as posible*.
The FreeBSD 4.x series has lived on well past FreeBSD 4.4 -- supposedly the last release on the 4.x line before 5.0. FreeBSD 4.6 is out, and 4.7 is in the planning stages.
It's now nearly impossible for a commercially paid developer to contribute usefully to FreeBSD, since nearly all commercially paid developers are running something based on -stable. FreeBS -current -- the 5.x developement work -- is *nearly two years* off the branch point from the 4.x -stable from which it is derived.
Linux *MUST* strive to keep the differences between "this release" and "the next release" *as small as possible*. They *MUST* not "back-port" new features from their -current branch to their -stable branch, simply because their -current branch is -*UN*stable.
Delaying the 2.6 release until the 2.7 release so that you can "stabilize" and "jam as many 2.7 features into 2.6 as possible" is a mistake.
Make the cut-off on 2.6. And then leave it alone. People who are driven by features will have to either run the developement version of 2.7, or they will simply have to wait.
Bowing to the people who want to "have their cake and eat it, too" is the biggest mistake any Open Source Software project can make.
Don't drag out 2.7, afterward, either... and that's inevitable, if everything that makes 2.7 desirable is pushed back into 2.6. Learn from the mistakes of others.
-- Terry
Couldn't the problem be solved by brancing the unstable first, then releasing the stable branch when it's ready?
For example, let's say that we're happy with the feature set in the 2.5 unstable series. Instead of putting off waiting for all of the bugs to get shaken out and call it 2.6, just switch from 2.5 to 2.7 on the unstable development side. Linus can pass the reins off to someone he trusts, we can have a GROF (Get Rid Of the Fin) party and his trusted lieutenant can finish stabilizing 2.5 into 2.6 without him.
This solves the problem of wanting to keep back-porting features from 2.7 into 2.6, it allows for time to make sure the 2.5 code is stable before public release as 2.6, and provides a clear feature-freeze mechanism: once Linus is gone, go bugfixes only. If you want the new features, run the unstable kernel or wait for 2.8 (released sometime after 2.9 is branched).
Not that my opinion matters at all, it's just an idea.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
Slightly offtopic:
It's really frustrating not to have a Linux kernel bug tracking system available. Searching through the huge lkml mailing list just doesn't cut it. And some questions pop back up every month, with no sign of it ever being addressed.
Example: the Athlon/VIA chipset freeze bug. Is it a chipset bug? A bios bug? A kernel bug? Is it fixed? Is it AMD's fault? Is it VIA's? Is it Linus's? Is it a PCI latency problem? An IDE problem?
Who the fuck knows!