linux-kernel - Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200611101852.14715.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:52:14 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.

Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> wrote:
> > Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 11:40:27PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > > Let me make one very clear statement first: -stabel is a GREAT think
> > > > and it is working VERY well.
> > > > That being said, many of the fixes I see going into -stable are
> > > > regression fixes. Maybe not the majority, but still, regression
> > > > fixes going into -stable tells me that the kernel should have seen
> > > > more testing/bugfixing before being declared a stable release.
> > >
> > > Nice theory, but of course I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't work
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > (as has been said numerous time before by other people).
> > >
> > > You cannot do endless testing/bugfixing, it's a psychological issue.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > If you do that, then you end up with -preXX (or worse, -preXXX)
> > > version numbers, which would cause too many people to wait and wait
> > > and wait with upgrading until "that next stable" kernel version
> > > finally becomes available.
> > > IOW, your tester base erodes, awfully, and development progress
> > > stalls.
> >
> > IMHO, the psycho-problem is that you cannot intertwine development and
> > stable in the same cycle.  In that respect, the 2.6 development cycle is
> > a real flop, as it does not allow for focus.
> >
> > And focus is needed to achieve stability.
> >
> > Think catch22...
> >
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > Al
>
> There are bugfixes which are too big for stable or -rc releases, that are
> queued for 2.6.20. "Bugfix only" is a relative statement. Do you include,
> new hardware support, new security api's, performance fixes.  It gets to
> be real hard to decide, because these are the changes that often cause
> regressions; often one major bug fix causes two minor bugs.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to get across; the 2.6 dev model tries to 
be two cycles in one, dev and stable, which yields an awkward catch22 
situation.

The only sane way forward in such a situation is to realize the mistake and 
return to the focused dev-only / stable-only model.

This would probably involve pushing the current 2.6 kernel into 2.8 and 
starting 2.9 as a dev-cycle only, once 2.8 has structurally stabilized.


Thanks!

--
Al

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/