Slashdot Mirror
New Linux Kernel Development Process
An anonymous reader writes "Releasing the 2.6.13-rc4 Linux Kernel, Linus Torvalds announced an improved development process to try and minimize the number of bugs in the kernel. The general idea is simple: changes will only be allowed for two weeks after the release of a stable kernel. All the rest of the time between releases will be spent on fixing bugs. This should improve upon last year's development module, which allows for active development in the 2.6 stable kernel."
The kernal of undigested corn in my poop!
but I was caught with php installed on my computer and now mod_perl won't work? Anyone have any advice?
Dear Internet Service Provider:
We understand that your website, http://www.slashdot.org/ is a popular site for developers to discuss topical issues of interest. In that vein, it has come to our attention that there have been numerous posts of concern related to Microsoft's copyrighted work entitled "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v. 1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems" and we would appreciate your posting this email to the site to help relay our position to your users.
This notice is being sent under the provisions, and following the guidelines, of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA).
Included on http://www.slashdot.org/ are comments that now appear in your Archives, which include unauthorized reproductions of Microsoft's copyrighted work entitled "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v.1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems" (hereafter "Specification"). In addition, some comments include links to unauthorized reproductions of the Specification, and some comments contain instructions on how to circumvent the End User License Agreement that is presented as part of the download for accessing the Specification.
Although not intended to be an exhaustive representation, the specific comments below, categorized by corresponding activities, are examples of the misuse of Microsoft's proprietary information:
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 02, @03:37PM EST (#197)"
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:09PM EST (#239)"
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:15PM EST (#248)"
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)"
Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification:
"by ka9dgx on Tuesday May 02, @2:52PM EST (#133)"
Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification:
"by myconid (my S conid@ P toge A the M r.net) on Tuesday May 02, @07:27PM EST (#362)"
"by markb on Tuesday May 02, @05:47PM EST (#321)"
"by Sami (respect.my@authorita-dot-net) on Tuesday May 02, @01:47PM EST (#19)"
"by iCEBalM (icebalm@[NOSPAM]bigfoot.com) on Tuesday May 02, @01:52PM EST (#33)"
"by Jonny Royale (moc.mocten.xi@notners) on Tuesday, May 02, @01:59PM EST (#51)"
"by rcw-work (rcw@d.e.b.i.a.n.org.without.dots) on Tuesday, May 02, @07:12PM EST (#353)"
Under the provisions of the DMCA, we expect that having been duly notified of this case of blatant copyright violation, Andover will remove the above referenced comments from its servers and forward our complaint to the owner of the referenced comments.
This email notification is a statement made under penalty of perjury that we are the copyright owner of the referenced Specification, that we are acting in good faith, and that the above-referenced comments, as part of http://www.slashdot.org/ is posting proprietary material without express written permission.
We request immediate action to remove the cited violations from Andover's servers, in accordance with the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.
This email is not intended to waive any of our other rights and remedies.
Please confirm your receipt of this request by responding to this email. Also, confirm the status of this request either via email or via the following contact mechanisms:
By mail:
J.K. Weston, Designated Agent
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way, 114/2314
Redmond, WA 98052
By phone:
(425) 703-5529
By email: jkweston@microsoft.com
In English, please?
It almost sounds like a normal sw dev process.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
How about splitting the kernel... Two branches one a server platform and the other a desktop platform... That way my server doesn't have audio or video4linux drivers in it... just raid, eth, and other important stuff... i bet it would reduce the size 10 fold... At least the development change is a good step in the right direction.
This seems to put more pressure on individual distro vendors to add features and test them, then discuss their inclusion in the upstream kernel. Seems pretty reasonable to me. This should definitely stabilize the kernel a lot.
Proper English is:
try to minimize
not:
try and minimize
I'm just going for my dialy troll mod, since I seem to be getting many troll and overrated mods for posts that don't deserve them.
Offtopic, but I don't know where else to post it: When did Slashdot's search on the main page change to Google Slashdot?
It's much better!
Two branches one a server platform and the other a desktop platform
Just make the kernal completely modular.
I was planning on submitting a patch to make a certain tablet pass pressure data to X. (By re-mapping Tablet-Pressure to Mouse-Z).
Now I'll have to rush to get it in without a huge wait before it gets in the main tree.
It means the longer you wait, the more stable the kernel will be.
No more lucky dips, and less need to depend on the vendors tracked patchsets.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
When we're about to release a new version of our software, we only focus on fixing bugs and adding important requested features. And of course, there are the all-famous CVS branches. In any case I'm glad the Linux development process has taken this approach.
make --menuconfig
How this would affect who get their kernels from their distros? Most distros have periodic binary builds for stable kernels, and even source-distributions like gentoo have dedicated teams to monitor and patch stable kernels. So how much is this gonna affect us who just use the standard distro kernels? They've always seem pretty stable to me.
Linux has made amazing progress.
But as I browse the submitters of actual code, it seems that it's no longer the every-man's operating system.
More and more often we're seeing Red Hat and IBM employees tinkering with the code.
Does this mean a lack of quality? No, certainly not. A professional developer is usually very well versed in what he or she's working on.
But I propose that we watch what is being worked on and that our priorities are appropriate.
Perhaps an IBM or similar company has a new feature that they want, or worse, need, in the Linux kernel, and as such they spend all their time working on that.
The reality might be however that an improved VM is needed but all the Red Hat guys are busy working on some scheduling code that really isn't as crucial.
As far as I know, Linus himself still verifies all submissions and deems which baselines they appear in, but I hope that since he's also a professional and getting paid by Corporate if our priorities are straight.
Hopefully RM Stallman and friends are always heads-up, but I'm aware that often some serious fights take place on the Linux kernel mailing list regarding these types of issues.
Let's keep Linux progressing in the areas it needs to mature!
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
This seems to work successfully for a number of open source projects, which use a version numbering system that allows users to tell at a glance whether they're using a development version.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Doesn't this seem a bit arbitrary, and short.
If developers have only 2 weeks to insert new functionality, the kernel is going to get everything dumped on it during those 2 weeks the developers are trying to squeeze everything in. And if something's missing, oh well, you missed it.
This just seems like a stupid rule he's using, forcing developers to concentrate their time the way he wants instead of them. As a developer, I would laugh if my boss told me that 80% of my time MUST be in a certain area, or put hard limits on the type of coding I must be doing.
You can already do that fairly easily.
Just pick what modules you want to use for whatever system.
Then utilize make --menuconfig and build as appropriate.
More information available via Google search.
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
Didn't Torvalds once say something along the line that 'perfect is the enemy of good' when criticizing BSD? Is he moving away from 'good-enough' with lots of features constantly coming out, towards a more BSD-esque, move along slowly with stable-code philosophy?
I, for one, welcome our English-correcting overlords.
As long as the correction is done in a kind manner, this kind of stuff does nothing but help. I've learned a few things, at least.
More
let's start hacking again
As I think more about this decision, I wonder why not simply split the development between bug fixes and feature providers.
For example, Linux kernel 2.7 is released.
We run regression test on it for a week or two.
At that point, we document all known bugs and hand them and the entire 2.7 codebase off to our bug fixing team.
Then we identify improvements to current capabilities as well as new features we want to add, document all of it clearly, and hand that off to the feature team along with their own copy of the 2.7 baseline.
Then we have our bug guys working the 2.7_bugfix baseline and our features guys adding valuable new code to the 2.7_features baseline.
Prior to the next release, we merge all the changes together, spend a week sorting out any dependecy problems and interface problems, then we ship.
And repeat.
Sounds feasible to me. I just don't like the feeling I get when thinking that there's such a short development window.
The Linux kernel is already pretty darn stable, especially when compared to other operating systems. Let's keep the new features coming!
If you "get" pointers add me as a friend (116)!
last years development module
Or maybe even, "last year's development model."
If you people can't even write everyday English, let along meet the more stringent requirements imposed by programming languages, then no wonder software sucks so much.
to buy Windows.
That's right. Buy Windows. FUCK COMPILING GAY KERNELS AND BEING GAY AND TRYING TO "INNOVATE" YOUR GAYNESS INTO A GAY PRODUCT!
Simplify your lives. Come to the sanctity of Windows and Microsoft and you will be at peace with yourselves and your gay friends.
Buy Windows.
----- Open Source = More Secure (mmmmkay)
2.6.x releases should be very stable. 2.6.x.y would be quite unstable (especially the first 3 weeks after 2.6.x), then get more stable as the y increases.
In addition to making a more stable OS only allowing two weeks to make changes cuts out people trying to submit changes that haven't been completely developed and tested.
-----------
http://ccc.1asphost.com/codeworm/
Funny yes, off-topic maybe, troll no.
Feel free to fork it at any time.
Sane input devices use XInput and help from an X driver, not remapping. And apps that understand pressure, expect Xinput devices. Just pointing that maybe your approach is far from normal.
and i think he did just fine
Also note that they are going to try this approach. If it doesn't work out, I expect that Linus (ever the pragmatist) will drop it rather quickly...
This simply makes it so that bug patches don't get stepped on all of the time. Developers that are submitting feature updates will have to simply time their submittion. I don't think it'll slow development at all, it'll just polish releases more easily.
How about fixing the bugs that have been outstanding for well over a year?
It really is disappointing to spend hours testing and finding how to 100% reproduce bugs, even those that freeze the system as a user, report it to the various mailing lists, only for them to be ignored.
Yes, I've tried fixing some myself.
>Despite all the nonsense slashdotters will say about Red Hat, Red Hat is one of the few distros that actually develops the software it ships rather than just repackaging other people's software.
Yes, in my years of watching and using GNU/Linux, Red Hat is the one company that has consistently (for about a decade) thrown full time developers at core code. Fortunately, nothing has changed other than the number of companies that are starting to consistently contribute full time developers.
2.6 has been one big regression fest, and despite its advantages I've always had to use something else for anything but desktop duty because the risk was too high.
There has to be a tradeoff between new features and sufficient stability to contemplate using the new features -- they aren't an advantage if they are inseparable from the bugs.
Glad Linus came around.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
MMAKES ME SICK JUST
I have them turned off and I didn't see his add. It also makes slashdot a hair less annoying.
I'm just going for my dialy troll mod[...]
Some things never change.
My first reaction is "then they better start releasing major kernel versions more frequently. I'm not trying to wait two years for each significant update. But then I started thinking. I have a couple of comments.
1) Is the driver system in linux mature enough that it is ABI-stable? Do you need to continue to have that many features added if drivers can be added easily by distros?
2) What features are still being added to the kernel that aren't drivers? Are they that exciting that you can't wait.
3) Will it really be good for distros to be doing development on the stable branch for stuff that won't get into the offical kernel until the next stable version? All the software is being developed on a platform that it won't ever officially be on.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
If you compile sound, v4l, etc into your kernel, then they will be in your running kernel. If you compile them as modules, then they won't be included in your running kernel until you load the modules.
Two different things you're talkin' 'bout here. Now, most main stream distros have just about everything included as modules, except system-critical stuff, and then use various means to detect your system hardware and load the modules needed.
uh...word.
"Development module" should be "development model"? Please fix, since the kernel has modules, there is real room for confusion. Posting anonymous because it's not worth reading for most, and will rightfully be modded into oblivion.
I suppose it's obligatory for me to note that LWN's kernel summit coverage talks about the development model changes - and many other things.
Jonathan Corbet, LWN.net
I remember when the Linux kernel was rock solid, stable and reliable. I remember when there were no huge code changes in the "stable" even-numbered kernel series. Remember those days? I'm talking late 2.2.x before the whole VM debacle in the first part of 2.4.x.
In the last few years, it seems the push to carve out marketshare on the desktop has been fuelling kernel development more so than server-oriented work. I've been frustrated to the point of recommending Linux-kernel-based systems only with caution and caveats, preferring instead Solaris for serious enterprise-level server-side work.
If this works out, it'd be a boon for enterprise adoption of the Linux kernel. Hats off to Linus et al. for this change in their practices.
--rc
In British usage, either spelling is correct, although I think that the -ise spelling is more common: it also tends to be the form used by official publications.
The Oxford Dictionary has always preferred -ize, although this is more through tradition and stubborn prescriptivism than anything else. (And maybe the fact that one of the original edition's most prolific contributors was the American murderer and lunatic William Chester Minor, then detained in Britain, might have had some small part to play.) Older editions of Chambers, on the other hand, preferred -ise to the extent of not even acknowledging the -ize variant.
I think that the strong desire to differentiate British usage from its colonial counterpart has also led to an increase in the usage of -ise, in an analoguous process to that in which Noah Webster attempted to Americanise the US orthography for political reasons.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
Problem is, those soft freezes never worked well when we had them for the year-plus cycles, so there's no reason to assume they'll work well for the spin-cycles.
Having said that, anything that encourages rapid development AND a clean stable version has to be a good thing, whether the developers stick to the strictest interpretation or not.
What's more, it might encourage vendors to MAINTAIN their code. (You listening, Red Hat?) A lot of vendor patches have been sluggish on the updates. By compelling developers to work in a much burstier fashion, vendors will have time to make the updates and be sure they're going to work, but are at much greater risk of them NOT working if they do nothing.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This is a new one for the Eggcorn Database, I think.
If your comment title says 'Re: Foo', I'm not likely to read it.
No more obsolete things!
R&D of J.C. Pizarro.
Having the 1st 2 weeks in the cycle be the only time for development need not slow us down.
:0
We can just release a new kernel every 2 weeks and spend all our time adding features!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
when someone trolls and notes that they'll get "unfairly" moderated for it, the usual response is "informative" . . . whehter it's trollish, informative, both, or neither . . .
hawk
While I'm wishing for ponies, could the bugfix-only release also have a stable ABI, pretty please?
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
This sounds a lot like the Debian development process, involving the 'freeze' period. Sounds promising.
It's useless to use 64 bit computing if the max. size of virtual memory is less than 4 GB.
WE NEED THE KERNEL's IMPLEMENTION OF DYNAMIC SWAP OVER FILESYSTEM FREE SPACE UPTO 200 GB!!!
Majority of the people on the internet are not native english speakers. Get used to it.
Red Leader Standing By!
Mmm I read the following in The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien (letter 148 to Katherine Farrer):
Jarrold's appear to have a highly educated pedant as a chief proof-reader, and they started correcting my English without reference to me: elfin for elven; farther for further; try to say for try and say and so on. I was put to the trouble of proving to him his own ignorance, as well as rebuking his impertinence.
FYI, Tolkien was professor of English language and literature at Oxford.
(Note that he doesn't say that "try to say" is wrong).