Re: [patch 0/6] 2.6.14.7 -stable review

On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 09:02:16PM -0800, Chuck Wolber wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 20:30:25 -0800 (PST) Chuck Wolber wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006, Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.14.7
> > > > release. There are 6 patches in this series, all will be posted as a
> > > > response to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being
> > > > applied, please let us know. If anyone is a maintainer of the
> > > > proper subsystem, and wants to add a signed-off-by: line to the
> > > > patch, please respond with it.
> > >
> > > Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't we supposed to stop
> > > doing this for the 2.6.14 release now that 2.6.15 is out?
> >
> > Some people wanted more -stable so the stable team agreed to do a little
> > more. Is it a problem?
>
>
> I don't know if there is a problem, but it goes against the concept of
> "one-off" fixes that aren't maintained (aka the purpose of the -stable
> team). This slope eventually leads us to backporting -stable fixes from
> other -stable releases etc etc.

The purpose of -stable is to provide stable kernels to 2.6 users. If time
was not a problem, it's possible that there would be even more versions
supported. The day you will install Linux on a server, you'll understand
why it's problematic for some people to upgrade to latest version to get
fixes. And when you get something that works, you hope to be able to use
it as an alternative to a simple upgrade when the later breaks on your
hardware.

> If there's one thing I've learned from watching guys like Alan Cox
> maintain stable releases, it's that they're profoundly good at saying
> "no". I'm not saying that's warranted here, I'm just trying to encourage
> the dialog (I suspect that I've missed part of the conversation as I am
> not currently subscribed to LKML).

It's not a matter of saying "yes" or "no", it's a matter of helping
users in getting something which works best on their hardware while
still being reliable and secure. Maintainers propose some solutions
for this, and can adapt to users' demands. I don't see anything wrong
with this.

> ..Chuck..

Willy

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Upgraded and Lost
    ... Sounds like a known problem caused by Office 2003 SP3. ... See if this fixes ... now, until the upgrade. ... the user tries to type their ID in, an error appears saying that that is ...
    (microsoft.public.access.forms)
  • Re: OT--MS Vista
    ... Drivers yes, hardware or software, no ... Are you saying you don't have to upgrade video cards etc? ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: Will A WindowsXP Upgrade Repair Win98 Problems
    ... I think you have to consider the "Upgrade" option as being a gamble in any ... hardware of course. ... first download and burn SP2 onto CD so you can install that before even ... your system to XP and hopefully resolve the problem that way. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Will A WindowsXP Upgrade Repair Win98 Problems
    ... that it is I would agree that an XP upgrade would be a useless endeavor. ... host of reasons - both software & hardware. ... your system to XP and hopefully resolve the problem that way. ... of your HDD before undertaking the upgrade. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: MS Licensing
    ... You might consider upgrading the hardware in those computers having the ... OEM installs of Windows. ... HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the computer system ... drive and then upgrade it. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)