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."
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?
that's a remarkably verbose post saying... what again? nothing? right.
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)!
With all due respect, Red Hat has been the largest kernel contributor for just under a decade now. They've been taking it in a good direction so far, I wouldn't worry about it too much. 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. Look at Apache, the Kernel, Gnome, libc, the GNU compiler collection, openoffice, evince, totem, dbus, and most of the drivers you use in your system. The list could literally go on for ages. They also are a major reason why linux has an amazing record for getting patches out quickly for security fixes, alot of those fixes are coded by Red Hat develoeprs. Not to mention they gave Linus 10 million dollars in stock as a showing of gratitude to him. They are a good company, and some of the best kernel hackers are paid by them (including Alan Cox).
Regards,
Steve
A developer doesn't have 2 weeks to insert new functionality. A developer can work on enhanced performance or new features for 9 months, but there is a 2-week window after each release in which patches will be accepted.
The two things are orthogonal.
We'd better hope everyone's patches are orthogonal too. If five Linux kernel developers all spend 9 months working independently on patches which turn out to make conflicting changes to the same subsystems, then after 2 weeks there will be one happy developer with his patch in the Linux kernel and four unhappy developers deciding whether to fork Linux or switch to FreeBSD.
Of course, to avoid such problems we can assume that those many different kernel developers are not working independently, but are committing changes to a single unstable kernel to share those changes and prevent conflicts. In that case, let's just call the new unstable kernel "2.7" and return to the system that was working so well for years.
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