linux-kernel - Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

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: <481DD0C5.4060005@gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 04 May 2008 17:05:41 +0200
From:	Jacek Luczak <difrost.kernel@...il.com>
To:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
CC:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

Krzysztof Halasa pisze:
> Personally I think the current process works reasonably well, though
> as we should always try to improve it further...
> 
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> 
>> On Thu, 1 May 2008, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> - opens all the debates about running parallel branches, such as, would it be
>>> better to /branch/ for 2.6.X-rc, and then keep going full steam on
>>> the trunk?
> 
> I think you could branch at ~ rc3 (strictly critical fixes only from
> this point). This way 'next' wouldn't be low-maintenance but the
> release branch would be.
> 
> I.e., the merge window would open at ~ rc3. At 'final', the merge window
> would probably be already closed :-)
> 
> Something like:
> - 2.6.26-rc3: 2.6.27 merge window opens, 2.6.26 - fixes only
> - 1 week later: no core changes for 2.6.27 except fixes (drivers only?)

Yep, that sounds pretty interesting. But It would be better to start something
like ,,slow merge window'' (explained below) around -rc4 where things really
slow down (or used to).

The idea of ,,slow merge window'' would look like:
	- merge only *obvious* (long awaiting) changes;
	- merge stuff (fixes) which comes to -rc releases;
	- merge non-core changes from -mm;

After releasing stable kernel the old style merge window opens.

> 2.6.26* would receive backports from 2.6.27 (cherry-picking? applying
> on 2.6.26 and merging?).
> The "no open regressions" rule would make sense certainly - unless in
> a specific case agreed otherwise.
> 
> Perhaps if needed you could let other people do the final release
> ("stable" extension) and concentrate on the trunk.
> 
>> If I'd have both a 'next' branch _and_ a full 2-week merge window, there's 
>> no upside.
> 
> Shorter cycle is the big upside.
> 
> Perhaps we could start branching later at first - say at 2.6.26-rc5,
> and see how does it work.

-Jacek
--
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/