Slashdot Mirror
Revamped Linux Kernel Numbering Concluded
kernel_dan writes "Following on the heels of a prior discussion about a kernel numbering scheme, KernelTrap has the conclusion. From summary: "Linus Torvalds decided against trying to add meaning to the odd/even least significant number. Instead, the new plan is to go from the current 2.6.x numbering to a finer-grained 2.6.x.y. Linus will continue to maintain only the 2.6.x releases, and the -rc releases in between. Others will add trivial patches to create the 2.6.x.y releases. Linus cautions that the task of maintaining a 2.6.x.y tree is not going to be enjoyable.'" Torvalds suggested specific guidelines to alleviate burn-out of the .y maintainer and Greg KH volunteered to begin maintainership."
The *.x.y kernels are unstable.
The *.x only kernels are stable.
Won't there be a 28 day cycle for
stability on the *.x only kernel?
You can find it in his own subdirectory on kernel.org at:
g kh/v2.6.11/
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/gre
It includes tiny fixes such as a Dell laptop keyboard fix and a raid6 compilation fix for ppc.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Others will add trivial patches to create the 2.6.x.y releases. Linus cautions that the task of maintaining a 2.6.x.y tree is not going to be enjoyable.
2.6.x...
2.6.x.y...
2.6.x.y.z...
Kind of a Zeno's Paradox, isn't it?
The coolest voice ever.
And all bets are off if you try compiling more than one *.x.y kernel on the same computer ...
Because bumps to the major version number indicate HUGE-scale rewrites, while the minor (.6 in this case) define feature-complete stable branches, and the trailing number at the end is for bugfixes and minor enhancements.
This is the way software SHOULD be versioned. It's the way Apple is versioning now, and it's the way Microsoft versions it's core systems (Windows XP SP2 = NT 5.1.2600).
Personally, I'd like for the odd-minor devel releases to go away and find some better way of versioning those, but everything else to-date has been sensible and sane, and I've been compiling my own kernels since the 2.1 series.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
The developers just felt there is no urgent need for 2.7 yet and also that 2.6 can accept more features in a semi-stable state than it would be truly a need for 2.7.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
FYI, Andres Salomon's patchset provides the foundation for Debian's kernels and has been discussed recently on kerneltrap here and here.
Best regards, A.C.
I'd have preferred r-theta polar coordinates.
The preceding post has been brought to you by the Automated Joke Destroyer 5000.
It would be cool if it didn't suck.
There's nothing that wrong with depending on an organization (be it commercial like Mandrake or non-profit like Debian) to put together an appropriate Kernel for you. That's not to say you shouldn't give BSD a crack (diversity encourages vigour after all), but I don't think there's anything wrong with the way Kernel development is taking place. Those who needs a rock-solid unfliching kernel can always use a 2.4 series kernel, or use BSD (as you suggested).
They're trying for a more rapid development cycle. 2.6 hasn't feature frozen like in the past.
It seems to be what the vendors want. RedHat 2.4 kernels have so much 2.6 stuff back-ported they're barely 2.4 anymore.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Linus Tourvalds keeps insisting he's just a coder and nothing more, and Alan Cox and everybody keep insisting he's just a coder and nothing more, but watching him in situations like this... he really is is disturbingly competent as a project manager. Like, to a degree that betrays a large amount of talent. I think he and others really sell him short... but of course one of the reasons he's so effective is because the relatively unassuming way in which he approaches things means people's attention is diverted elsewhere, thus allowing him to actually get stuff done :P
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Windows XP SP2 = NT 5.1.2600
Funny. Someone HAS to have planned that one.
Don't bother. All they fixed were some spelling errors in the comment lines.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
I've only ever had one comment modded down as Flamebait.... this may be #2.
As near as I can tell from reading recent comments on this particular decision, the single biggest reason they don't want to do 2.7 is because not enough people will test it. Only by calling it 'stable' can they get enough testers. Of course, the fact that it will now never really BE stable, seems to have been lost on them.
This is better than what they have been doing, but only slightly. What Linus seems to really want is for everyone in the whole world to be using the very most recent kernel. He wants, in essence, everyone in the world to be beta testers. By putting out new code and calling it 'stable', he gets hundreds of thousands of testers, and is able to shake out bugs much faster.
Apparently, the possibility that it might be banks and hospitals that are discovering these bugs didn't occur to them. Discovering a bug is an EXTREMELY PAINFUL PROCESS for someone who isn't expecting one. So instead of doing the nasty hard work of maintaining separate stable and development branches, they push that pain onto everyone else in the world.
Personally, I want software that works more than I want the latest whizbang feature. That's why I got onto Linux in the first place, a decade ago... I was frustrated with Windows. It was such a delight to run software that never, ever crashed. It was crude, it was simple, but it was *incredibly* reliable, and that more than any other single thing is why I switched.
I find it quite ironic that Windows 2003, in the hands of capable admins, with all its design flaws and warts, is substantially more stable than is Linux. There's a reason Ars Technica switched from Linux to Windows, and stayed there. If anyone on the planet is competent, it's those guys. And from the sound of it, they're very happy with the results.
At this point, I'm so disgusted with this state of affairs that I'm running a test installation of FreeBSD. Their development cycle is much saner. They don't have as many features, but the ones they DO have, seem to work. Maybe they should add a new motto: "Software by Adults, for Folks Who Could Lose Their Job if it Breaks".
*sigh*
Indeed, I feel that 2.6 was pushed out prematurely, but many features in it are desparately needed for publicity (for example, a working ACPI), so the kernel needs the "stable" status to give people incentive to use.
The fact that kernel developers are still adding new features suggest that it is still a development kernel. Stable kernels are for bug fixes. If they need new features to fix existing bugs, that's when they should bump up the stable version number.
However, I think version number is already obsolete for Linux kernels. We should be able to manage patchsets as if they're software packages, complete with dependency and conflict information that are automatically computed. When you want a "patch" to be included in your kernel, it looks for patches it depends on, checks to see whether it results in a conflict, and apply the patches. Periodically, "metapatches" are updated to depend on the most recent patches along some feature. More intricacies need to be worked out.
Assuming (0) that there is a demand for such a patch manager---I think the problem with developing it is that (1) it's difficult to develop a realistic test project from ground up using the patch manager, so the patch system can show that its design is useful, and (2) if we use an existing large software project (such as the Linux kernel), programmers for the patch manager would spend too much time following the development for that other project, rather than have useful work done; they might not want to do it. In general, we want to test the patch manager on a big project, but we also risk wasting too much time on the test project.
It would be best if the developers of a large project (can also think about the Linux kernel) will take the initiative into developing a patch manager, since they have a demand for it (or can be convinced to have a demand), already have a realistic software product, and are willing to follow the development of their own project.
I'm saying that there is a seed for an innovative patch management and revision control system from maintaining a Linux kernel. They should do something about it.
I once had a signature.
Arstechnica you say? -- isnt it ironic their site was down for atleast 5 hours about a week back?
Also, look at their uptimes on netcraft. There average uptime plummeted to about half since they switched to windows. Sure its still "good enough", but how can you possibly say 2003 is more stable that linux? - especially substantially more stable?
Yes, there is. Quoted from their article on the redesign:I don't know - did they ever release that article documenting the thought process?
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.