Slashdot Mirror


No 2.7 Linux Kernel Branch Due Soon

An anonymous reader writes "At the fourth annual Linux Kernel Developers Summit, it was decided that there won't be a 2.7 Linux kernel development branch any time soon. Instead, Linux creator Linus Torvalds and the official 2.6 maintainer Andrew Morton have decided to continue working as a team, further enhancing the 2.6 kernel. Up to this point, kernels ending in an odd number (2.1, 2.3, 2.5, etc) were considered development kernels, and kernels ending in an even number (2.2, 2.4, 2.6, etc) were considered stable kernels. However, according to this KernelTrap article, active development will now continue in the mainline 2.6 tree, and the final stabilization will be left up to the companies that provide Linux distributions."

16 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. This is bad. by dangermen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is bad. Not all distribution maintainers have armies of patch people. This will push people to one of a few distributions such as RedHat or Suse. Espcially if 2.6 becomes an unstable piece of crap.

    1. Re:This is bad. by stevesliva · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I was thinking the same things, but there's a bit of ambiguity in what is meant by "stable." I think they may have meant code stable, not OS stability.

      That said, it could be a good thing to preempt the distros from forking in order to add new features that they do not want to wait for, and it also adds the benefit of Linux providing the OS features that you want ASAP, not in 2005, err, maybe 2006, 2007 or 2008 when the next major release is planned-- that would be the Longhorn development model.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    2. Re:This is bad. by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Informative
      I started to see that with RedHat 7x. When they decided to rip out the new VM and go with something else on a "stable" kernel, plus who knows how many RedHat modifacations.


      Not quite. It was Linus that ripped the VM out. Red Hat sticked with the VM that originally shipped with 2.4
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  2. what next? by bje2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    we get stories for every kernel realease as it is, and now we get stories when there's *not* gonna be a kernel release?

    what's next? a story on microsoft *not* putting out a new version of windows?...oh, wait...

    --

    "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
  3. Nothing like... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing like doing development on a production machine! I love the smell of flaky kernels in the morning.

  4. Not entirely unexpected.... by martinbogo · · Score: 4, Interesting


    The 2.6 linux kernel has been a roller coaster ride of development, and it was obvious from the switch from 2.5->2.6 that the kernel was far from ready for prime time.

    So, now we're stuck with a rapidly developing 2.6 kernel that poses a lot of risks for anyone wishing to adopt the new so-percieved "stable" kernel into an OS/Embedded/Other product.

    In a way, this is just an acknowledgement that things went a bit too fast with 2.6, and that waiting to release it -after- some pretty solid core feature freezes would have been good.

    There is still a lot of development and teething going on, and it's going to be a real pain on the part of "third party distributors" to find and use whatever build-of-the-week is more stable than another in a given sub-branch of the 2.6 kernel.

    Oh well, so much for having a nice stable 2.6 base to build new functionality into.

    --
    "Don't worry about the problems you have in mathematics, I assure you mine are much greater." - Einstein c.1919
    1. Re:Not entirely unexpected.... by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please explain?

      So far for me, 2.6 is turning out to be pretty stable, and I switched to it quite early, starting with 2.6.3 I think. In comparison, 2.4.3 was really bad. It was almost a miracle that I managed to avoid critical data loss after switching to 2.4.0 and using ReiserFS on my root partition.

      2.6 so far just works and that's it. Maybe there's some lack of polish somewhere, but so far it works fine here on SMP.

  5. Slackware and Vanilla? by Lispy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what exactly does this mean for distributions such as Slackware wich ship a vanilla kernel? Personally I always preferred having it "as it was meant to be" without any tweaking of the distributor.
    The latest Fedora Core 2 debacle proves that this can lead to trouble (NVidia Binaries broken, etc.).

    Distributions such as SLKX (wich ships a vanilla 2.4.22) didnt include the 2.6 series as the defaultkernel. My guess is Patrick didnt trust the beast yet. So what is a man like Pat to do if there isnt the manpower or will to patch the kernel but the "stable" branch cant be trusted anymore, too?

  6. Re:A good idea? by bakreule · · Score: 4, Informative
    (Overly) simple answer: 2.6-mm is development. 2.6 vanilla is stable.

    Unfortunately according to the article, that's not true.... 2.6-mm is bleeding edge, 2.6 is development/testing and 2.6.redhat or whatever is stable.....

    --

    Buses stop at a bus station
    Trains stop at a train station
    On my desk there's a workstation....

  7. Re:Already happening.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sorry your forcedeth driver example is harsh. The driver is clearly labelled as "EXPERIMENTAL", and what's more it is *reverse engineered* because nvidia didn't want to give out the documentation to it. You are lucky someone was actually working on it at all.

    As a sidenote, nvidia is now actually contributing to this very driver, however that has been since 2.6.7.

    So this line of argument holds no water.

  8. Lessons Learned from 2.4 by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even "production" kernels can have problems. Remember the VM changes around 2.4.10?

    New productions kernels deserve every developer's full attention until they're really really ready.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  9. Re:Oh dear... by ZorroXXX · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Come on. No major distributions except Slackware ships with a plain vanilla kernel. "All" distributions patch their kernel (based on a stable relase) more or less heavily, sometimes resulting in problems, see for example here or here.

    So with development continuing longer on the 2.6 branch it might help decreasing the diversety of the different vendor kernels. At least it is worth trying.

    --
    When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
  10. Chill. by thecombatwombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To everyone saying this will kill the independent distro, chill.

    If you were going to make a new distro right now, in my opinion you'd be better off starting with Fedora or Progeny's Componetized Linux or vanilla Debian or something as it is, stand on some shoulders people. Linus and his crew produce a kernel, not an operating system, I'm sure they're doing this to produce the best kernel they can, not because they hate you.

    Like other people said, 2.4 had so many changes go in during it's "stable" life, maybe their just trying to be realistic and make 2.6 actually be more stable than 2.4 this way?

  11. Re:Very true by turgid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What scares me is that "the community" is no longer going to aim to produce a stable kernel, but rather, it will be up to the commercial distributors. This goes against the whole idea of Free Software. The idea is to make a working, useful product, not half-baked cripple-ware that you then have to pay someone to fix. I understand the concept of paying other people to "add value" i.e. enhanced features, but I don't regard stability as an "enhanced feature." A lot of people who don't alread run Linux (but maybe Windows) will now have one less reason to change and one more piece of FUD to beat the Free and Open Source Software movement with.

    I'm a Slakware man myself, but I don't like sitting around waiting for Patrick to make a new kernel. I like to update my kernel myself from the official Linus tarball as and when required. This will no longer be possible.

  12. Don't Panic! This is not a big deal (really). by leinhos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems to me that everyone is assuming that there will never be a 2.7 tree. From the article, the simply quote Jonathan Corbet as saying that "2.7 will only be created when it becomes clear that there are sufficient patches which are truly disruptive enough to require it. When 2.7 *is* created, it could be highly experimental, and may turn out to be a throwaway tree."

    They are just concentrating on the stable branch for now, and collecting a patch set (Andrew Morton's -mm patch set, that is) as a testing ground for proposed (stable) kernel changes.

    This really doesn't seem like a big deal, and it implies that the kernel people will focusing on stability for the time being.

  13. BSD Style Versioning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe they should call the current 2.6.x series -RELEASE, and then when 2.7.x starts, call it -STABLE as it goes into maintenence mode.

    Having the 3 forms like FreeBSD does: -CURRENT, -RELEASE, and -STABLE, is a good model, IMO. -CURRENT means you shouldn't touch it unless you are a developer, -RELEASE means end users can touch it, but it is not necessarily stable.. it's kind of a beta that's good enough for public consumption for the most part. And -STABLE is the ultra solid, will-not-crash, version.

    So, 2.4.x = -STABLE
    2.6.x = -RELEASE
    2.6.x-mm = -CURRENT