Linus wrote (back on 4th March):
:The even/odd situation would have made for a situation that some people
:seem to be arguing for (more explicit calming-down period), but with the
:difference that I think the odd ones should definitely have been
:user-release quality already. But that one was appar
viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:41:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I did note something strange. I'm running 2.6.11.2 at this moment, when I
> > > tried 2.6.11.3, my USB Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse stopped mov
On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 04:41:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I did note something strange. I'm running 2.6.11.2 at this moment, when I
> > tried 2.6.11.3, my USB Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse stopped moving
> > from left to right, and would only mo
viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I did note something strange. I'm running 2.6.11.2 at this moment, when I
> tried 2.6.11.3, my USB Microsoft Wireless Optical Mouse stopped moving
> from left to right, and would only move up and down if I physically moved
> the mouse from left to right. I d
-blather-
It took a few days before I actually saw this posting. I also agree that
2.6.10 seems to be more stable than 2.6.11 - mind you, that could be
because I'm using 2.6.10-linus (i.e. the tarball from the linux.org site)
and the 2.6.11 is a Mandrake-ised kernel + Linus patches - at least I
*th
> "Andrew" == Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Now, I haven't actually gotten any complaints about 2.6.11 (apart
>> from "gcc4 still has problems" with fairly trivial solutions)
Andrew> There have been quite a few. Mainly d
Hi!
> > The fact that not a script, but Linus Torvalds, decides that the tree is
> > in a state he likes to share with others. You have been doing -pre's all
> > this time, it's just that you are calling them -rc's.
>
> No.
>
> I used to do "-pre", a long time ago. Exactly because they were
>
--- Lee Revell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:25 +0100, szonyi calin wrote:
> > --- Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > Taking into account that nobody responded on lkml nor
> > on alsa (the message was awaiting modderator aprouval
> > on alsa-devel) i don't thin
On Maw, 2005-03-08 at 23:50, Lee Revell wrote:
> This only works because those OS'es come bundled with a toy softsynth.
> With ALSA, you either need a supported hardware wavetable synth
> (emu10k1) or a real soft synth like Timidity or Fluidsynth.
CS4239 has a toy synth of sorts (its more "doorbel
szonyi calin wrote:
Let me tell you what i understood from this thread:
2.6.12 "almost stable"
2.6.13 devel (new drivers,fixes and stuff -- may be broken)
2.6.14 (based on 2.6.13) tries to became stable again
2.6.15 also devel (see above)
2.6.16 (based on 2.6.15) also tries to became stable again
--- Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> Tangent: I would like to see requests-for-testing for FC
> kernels on LKML.
>
> If people announce -ac/-as/-aa/-ck/etc. kernels on LKML, why
> not distro
> kernels?
>
>
Because some people switched to other distribution also
because of the
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:25 +0100, szonyi calin wrote:
> --- Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Taking into account that nobody responded on lkml nor
> on alsa (the message was awaiting modderator aprouval
> on alsa-devel) i don't think i will send more bug reports
> to alsa.
How long
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 00:25 +0100, szonyi calin wrote:
> I reported once a bug on alsa-devel and cc-ed on lkml
> The sequencer isn't working with my card cs4239 with alsa.
>
What exactly do you mean by "it isn't working"?
90% of "MIDI does not work" bug reports are from users who expect
playing
--- Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:15:36PM -0800, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But when pressed about the issue of speed of development,
> rate of
> > change, feature increase, driver updates, and so on, no one
> else has any
> > clu
szonyi calin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I reported once a bug on alsa-devel and cc-ed on lkml
> The sequencer isn't working with my card cs4239 with alsa.
>
I cannot find your report (checked back to the start of the year).
Please send a new one. I'm collection them.
-
To unsubscribe from
--- Dave Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> > Grump. Have all these regressions received the appropriate
> level of
> > visibility on this mailing list?
>
> For the most part these things are usually known about by
> their upstream
> authors. To give an example: ALSA update in 2.6.10 brok
--- Zwane Mwaikambo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Certainly -mm can be the feature tree, but i've noticed that
> not that many
> people run -mm aside from developers. Meaning that a fair
> number of bugs
> seep into Linus' tree before they get attended to. It would
> even be more
> effective
Linus Torvalds wrote:
Okay, I stayed out of this until the dust has settled, but I do have a
few thoughts.
First is that naming is important if people are to understand the
release system, and I think a lot of people don't. So why not:
- put out -devN kernel for testing, lots of people don't kn
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:26:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Looking at the http://l4x.org/k/ site, it appears that all -mm versions
> > have broken ARM support with the defconfig, while Linus kernels at least
> > build fine.
>
> It's very much in an arch maintainer's interest to make su
--- "Randy.Dunlap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
>
> Maybe I don't understand? Is someone expecting distro
> quality/stability from kernel.org kernels?
> I don't, but maybe I'm one of those minorities.
>
yes. Some people (like me) would like to use from time to time
some _new_ stable kernel.
On Sul, 2005-03-06 at 07:53, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:15:03 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> There's also no other (suitable) place to announce kernel trees. Debian
> kernels get announced on various debian-related lists; I'd imagine FC
> kernels have the same thing. The only pla
On Sul, 2005-03-06 at 22:43, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > 2.6.x.y needs several people to keep it tight and to ensure there is
> > always cover on a security fix.
>
> Eh?
>
> Like you add security fix and then some formatting change to hide it?
Cover has rather too many meanings I guess. Cover as in
Hi!
> > The point is that it's happening anyway. See Andres' -as tree which
> > is the basis for the Debian vendor kernel. Getting that up to an
> > official status as 2.6.x.y would be very nice (and having it on
> > linux.bkbits.net)
>
> IMHO it is nowhere near conservative enough (or at times
On Sun, Mar 06, 2005 at 02:53:26AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote:
> There's also no other (suitable) place to announce kernel trees. Debian
> kernels get announced on various debian-related lists; I'd imagine FC
> kernels have the same thing. The only place to announce non-distro trees
> is lkml
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:15:03 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 04:28:52PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
>> >I've watched you periodically announce "hey, I'm doing an update for
>> >FC3/FC2, please test" on the mail list, and a handful of people go test.
>>
Clearly I picked a bad week to go on vacation..
On Fri, 04 Mar 2005
10:18:41 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
>
> Alan, I think your problem is that you really think that the tree _I_ want
> is what _you_ want.
>
> I look at this from a _layering_ standpoint. Not from a "stable tree"
> sta
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:41:34PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> That's true. I guess my lack of trust in vendor kernels is part being
> bitten by them in the past where my own custom build vanilla kernels have
> worked fine, and part the fear of getting locked-in to some vendor
> specific feature
Russell King:
Two things - are you sure that openembedded contains the patches to
fix the two biggest binutils issues we have, as documented on
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/toolchain/ ?
I've checked and it contains the tc-arm.c.patch but does not have the ARM
mapping symbols fix. As recent
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:32:18AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 11:16 +, Russell King wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:11:38AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 10:52 +, Russell King wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately, http://l4x.org/k/ doesn't save
John Alvord wrote:
One way to handle the transition into bug-fix only would be to turn
the tree over to the $stability crew at that moment. They would have
the job of nursing it to stability under the given ground rules.
Yes. However, the discussion is now over due to the .1 work which solves
a d
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 14:23:37 +0100, Rene Herman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>> Rene Herman wrote:
>>
>>> Doing -pre and real -rc will get you more testers for -rc. Whether or
>>
>>> Add in the fourth level .k releases for real problematic bugs found
>>> after release as yo
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > We have all these problems precisely because _nobody_ is saying "I'm
> > only going to accept bug fixes". We _need_ some amount of release
> > engineering. Right now we basically have none.
>
> I agree
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Rene Herman wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's the
difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
The fact that not a script, but Linus Torvalds, decides that the tree is in a
state he likes to sha
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:37:05PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>...
> I used to do "-pre", a long time ago. Exactly because they were
> synchronization points for developers.
>...
> So the point of -pre's are gone. Have people actually _looked_ at the -rc
> releases? They are very much done when
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > It might still be worth a try, especially since so many people are
> > convinced this is the way to go (your fault or not is not the point).
>
> Making releases is actually a fair bit of work. Not
On Friday 04 March 2005 15:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
>No.
>
>I used to do "-pre", a long time ago. Exactly because they were
>synchronization points for developers.
>
>These days, that's pointless. We keep the tree in pretty good
> working order (certainly as good as my -pre's ever were)
> co
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> That's now eight architectures I'll compile-test mm kernels on.
Cool, but please check whether this produces an error:
echo "mov r0, #foo" | arm-linux-as -o /dev/null -
you should get:
{standard input}: Assembler messages:
{standar
"Richard Purdie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As an experiment I ran "bitbake meta-sdk" on my copy of openemedded. A while
> later I have these in the deploy directory amongst other things.
>
> http://www.rpsys.net/openzaurus/arm-cross/binutils-cross-sdk-2.15.91.0.2-r5.tar.gz
>
> (3.8MB)
> ht
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > That's now eight architectures I'll compile-test mm kernels on.
>
> Cool, but please check whether this produces an error:
>
> echo "mov r0, #foo" | arm-linux-as -o /dev/null -
>
> you
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:48:08PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:22:19PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > That's now eight architectures I'll compile-test mm kernels on.
> >
> > Cool, but please check whether this produces
Matt Mackall wrote:
> One last plea for the 2.4 scheme:
>
> I think naming the interim releases -pre/-rc has done this admirably
> for 2.4.
I agree. This makes more sense to me than some implicit understanding
about the parity of the revision.
rc is easy to understand, and '-pre' is easy to und
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:07:23PM -0700, Steven Cole wrote:
>
> Here's an idea which might just be too simple, but here it is anyway:
>
> Modifiy the bk snapshot scripts to name the 2.6.x series snapshots as -PREy
> instead of -BKy. That way, the general population of users will see
> the -bk s
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Rene Herman wrote:
>
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's the
> > difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
>
> The fact that not a script, but Linus Torvalds, decides that the tree is
> in
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> It might still be worth a try, especially since so many people are
> convinced this is the way to go (your fault or not is not the point).
Making releases is actually a fair bit of work. Not the script itself, but
just deciding and trying to synchr
> -fixup or -fixes maybe. x.y is OK too. :)
How about Service Pack?
:joke:
I could never understand why we have confused users in the naming in 2.6
serials and are trying to confuse them even more..
Hua
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:12:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Let's try with the 2.6.x.y numbering scheme, it's simple, and maybe it
ends up being sufficient. I just wanted to bring up the point that I don't
think the sucker tree _has_ to be seen as a 2.6.x.y tree at all.
Fair e
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04 2005, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > I run vanilla kernels on all my boxes, workstations and
> > servers, since I don't really trust vendor kernels.
>
> That's a strange statement, I don't think you are aware of
> the level of testing that goes into
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's the
difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
The fact that not a script, but Linus Torvalds, decides that the tree is
in a state he likes to share with others. You have been doing -pr
Richard Purdie wrote:
Writing instructions for setting up oe to build it may be the best
option.
As it happens I was editing that exact page in the wiki t'other day:
http://openembedded.org/cgi-bin/moin.cgi/GettingStarted
I actually only wanted a toolchain but oe and scratchbox[1] seemed the
rat
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:12:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But automation takes time to build up and learn, and in the meantime doing
> it by hand and learning early is definitely the right thing to do. Maybe
> you doing it by hand just makes it clear that I was wrong about the need
> for
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:59:54AM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> Can/will/should it also include *required* (showstopper) build fixes,
> if there are any of those?
I think so, the ppc fix is such a thing. But not for things marked
CONFIG_BROKEN :)
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this l
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's
the difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
Several non-BK developers use the first -rc1 as a merge point.
Others simply trust that _Linus_ has a lot more smarts t
Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:27:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Btw, I also think that this means that the sucker-tree should never aim to
be a "2.6.x.y" kind of release tree. If we do a "2.6.x.y" release, the
sucker tree would be _included_ in that release (and it may indeed be al
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 04 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > The average user has learnt "rc1 == pre1". I don't expect that it
> > > > matters much at all.
>
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Ah crap, I just called the first release of such a tree, 2.6.11.1.
I don't think any of us really _know_ where we are going, and we're all
just discussing our personal ideas of what should work.
As such, I think experimentation comes into it. Dammit, I w
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 09:57 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's the
> difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
-preX are milestones mainly for developers
When -preX is converted to -rc1 then it defines feature
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I'd like to set up is the reverse. The same way the "wild" kernels
> tend to layer on top of my standard kernel, I'd like to have a lower
> level, the "anti-wild" kernel. Something that is comprised of patches
> that _everybody_ can agree on, and
Or to put it more simply:
The people we want testing these kernels have been trained to expect
certain things from a Release Candidate.
These people don't have time to read LKML and understand Linus's
deviation from the norm.
Therefore, if you want them to test, follow their expectations.
As I
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 09:57:38AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's
> the difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
>
> So when I do a release, it _is_ an -rc. The fact that people have
> trouble understanding
On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 18:18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Alan, I think your problem is that you really think that the tree _I_ want
> is what _you_ want.
No I think you just misunderstood the point I was trying to make. They
are different trees and the difference is what stops you just doing the
laye
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 10:27:37AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Btw, I also think that this means that the sucker-tree should never aim to
> be a "2.6.x.y" kind of release tree. If we do a "2.6.x.y" release, the
> sucker tree would be _included_ in that release (and it may indeed be all
> of i
Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:33:33PM -, Richard Purdie wrote:
>
>>I'm in two minds though as generating
>>your own from openembedded isn't difficult. Writing instructions for setting
>>up oe to build it may be the best option.
>
>
> Two things - are you sure that openem
Linus Torvalds wrote:
I've long since decided that there's no point to making "-pre". What's the
difference between a "-pre" and a daily -bk snapshot? Really?
Several non-BK developers use the first -rc1 as a merge point.
Others simply trust that _Linus_ has a lot more smarts than an automated
sc
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> In other words: I'm talking about scalability of development, not about
> fixing every single serious bug. I think this one will catch the
> embarrassing brown-paper-bag kinds of things, and maybe 90% of the "duh,
> we had this race forever, but w
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday March 2, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > A Linus based odd number
> > might be closer to that if we hope on people unwittingly running them.
>^^^
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 11:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I think you're assuming that 2.6.x.y will have larger scope than is
> > intended.
>
> The examples I gave for remap_vm_area and exec are both from real world
> "gosh look I am root isn't that fun" type
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 05:33:33PM -, Richard Purdie wrote:
> I'm in two minds though as generating
> your own from openembedded isn't difficult. Writing instructions for setting
> up oe to build it may be the best option.
Two things - are you sure that openembedded contains the patches to
f
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 04 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > The average user has learnt "rc1 == pre1". I don't expect that it
> > > matters much at all.
> >
> > The average user and lkml reader, perhaps. But I don
Russell King:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:40:30PM -, Richard Purdie wrote:
I've found the arm cross compiler generated from openembedded
(http://openembedded.org) to be very reliable. The big advantage in using
oe
would be that it is in active use so it is always highly likely to
generate
a wo
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:36:26AM +, Russell King wrote:
>...
> Anyway, going back to why -mm doesn't work:
>
> arch/arm/kernel/built-in.o(.init.text+0xb64): In function `$a':
> : undefined reference to `rd_size'
> make[1]: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1
>
> So "rd_size" got deleted in -mm k
> I'd love for the -mm tree to get more testing, but it doesn't.
So the question is how to hook up more "customers" for testing thing?
mm...maybe OSDL should provide special live mini-distro weekly, which
will run entirely from 256 MB USB flashdrive :)
Lot of automated testing, lot of nice and col
I decided to write the following proposal after getting a headache
trying to explain the Linux versioning scheme to a friend of mine.
Only then did I find that the powers that be are talking about the same
thing. It's far from a complete âengineering standardâ but it
makes sense to me.
Disclaimer
On Fri, Mar 04 2005, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> I run vanilla kernels on all my boxes, workstations and
> servers, since I don't really trust vendor kernels.
That's a strange statement, I don't think you are aware of
the level of testing that goes into a vendor kernel, at
least for the 'enterprise' prod
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:40:30PM -, Richard Purdie wrote:
> I've found the arm cross compiler generated from openembedded
> (http://openembedded.org) to be very reliable. The big advantage in using oe
> would be that it is in active use so it is always highly likely to generate
> a working
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 11:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I think you're assuming that 2.6.x.y will have larger scope than is
> > intended.
>
> The examples I gave for remap_vm_area and exec are both from real world
> "gosh look I am root isn't that fun" type s
El Fri, 4 Mar 2005 11:06:33 +,
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Overall, my experience with the kernel bugzilla has been rather
> unproductive. Most bugs which came in my direction weren't for things
> I could resolve.
It's possible that there're other bug tracking systems that
Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
Ie I'd organize it like some of the "checkin committees" work for other
projects that have nowhere _near_ as much work going on as Linux has. That
seems to work well for small projects - and we can try to keep this
"small" exactly by having the strict rules in place t
On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 11:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> I think you're assuming that 2.6.x.y will have larger scope than is intended.
The examples I gave for remap_vm_area and exec are both from real world
"gosh look I am root isn't that fun" type security holes. If that is
outside the scope of 2.6.x.
Russell King:
It's very much in an arch maintainer's interest to make sure that
cross-compilers are easily obtainable. Any hints?
I was thinking at the time "great, this is one problem which should be
solved". How silly of me. It seems, yet again, that it comes down to
a case of "if rmk doesn't
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:44:10AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:26:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:38:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:26:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:38:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Grump. Have all these regressions received the appropriate leve
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> Maybe I don't understand? Is someone expecting distro
> quality/stability from kernel.org kernels?
> I don't, but maybe I'm one of those minorities.
>
I certainly do, and I think many others do as well.
My assumptions/expectations on vanilla kernels ha
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:38:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Grump. Have all these regressions received the appropriate level of
> > visibility on this mailing list?
>
> Looking at the http://l4x.org/k/ site, it appears that all -mm versions
>
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:26:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:38:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Grump. Have all these regressions received the appropriate level of
> > > visibility on this mailing list?
> >
>
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:11:38AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 10:52 +, Russell King wrote:
> > Unfortunately, http://l4x.org/k/ doesn't save any build logs for
> > investigation.
>
> If you click the 'Fail' then it seems to keep the make output etc.
elinks doesn't show
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Almost without exception maintainers will forget the backport (there are
> some notable exceptions). Almost without exception maintainers will not
> be aware that their backport fix clashes with another fix because that
> isn't their concern.
>
> Linus
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 11:16 +, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 11:11:38AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 10:52 +, Russell King wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, http://l4x.org/k/ doesn't save any build logs for
> > > investigation.
> >
> > If you click the 'Fa
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 09:43:58PM +0100, Diego Calleja wrote:
> bugzilla.kernel.org is there but not many people look at it (which I
> understand, using bugzilla is painfull, altough basing all your
> development strategy around it _is_ rewarding, as happens in gnome/etc,
> where the release annou
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 10:52 +, Russell King wrote:
> Unfortunately, http://l4x.org/k/ doesn't save any build logs for
> investigation.
If you click the 'Fail' then it seems to keep the make output etc.
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell, Senior Design Engineer
Web:
On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 05:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This means that for patches which didn't come through -mm, their first
> exposure in a public tree will be when they pop up in our "most stable"
> tree. That's backwards.
Its irrelevant. Most of the "must
On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 02:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I would disagree, and I suspect anyone else who has maintained a distro
> > stable kernel would likewise. It needs one or more people who know who
> > to ask about stuff, are careful, have a good grounding in bug spotting,
> > races, common mist
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:38:12PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Grump. Have all these regressions received the appropriate level of
> visibility on this mailing list?
Looking at the http://l4x.org/k/ site, it appears that all -mm versions
have broken ARM support with the defconfig, while Linus k
On Gwe, 2005-03-04 at 01:44, CaT wrote:
> > Depends on your PCI bus and also if the are on the same IRQ. In the same
> Hmm. How can I check on this? What should I look for?
If you've got two promise cards on a VIA 133Mhz or early 266Mhz chipset
for example then there are large numbers of reports b
-rc just means "please start testing", not "deploy me on your corporate
database server".
Does it? Where on www.kernel.org does it say that?
Since people's trust was lost (a bit) when the -rc convention was
"embraced and extended", it seems like it would be a good idea to
_explicitly publish_
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:10:47PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Dave Jones wrote:
> > For it to truly be a stable kernel, the only patches I'd expect to
> > drivers would be ones fixing blindingly obvious bugs. No cleanups.
> > No new functionality. I'd even question new hardware support if it
> >
Gene Heskett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've seen this comment before too, and I still think it says it best:
>
> The full release s/b the last rc with NO changes other than its name.
>
> Now we are faced with a final that may have another 50k+ of patches
> applied over what made the rc5. IMO
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 00:54 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I don't see that the releases are stable. They are defined stable by
> > proclamation.
>
> If they were stable we'd release the darn things!
You are hitting the point. We release the darn things. 2.6.11 is
released and it is not stabl
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Dave Jones wrote:
> Other failures have been somewhat more dramatic.
> I know ipsec-tools, and alsa-lib have both caused pain
> on at least one occasion after the last 2-3 kernel updates.
alsa-lib: You mean the problem with the emu10k1 based soundcards from
Creative? It's beca
Andrew Morton wrote:
Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't see that the releases are stable. They are defined stable by
proclamation.
If they were stable we'd release the darn things! *obviously* -rc kernels
are expected to still have problems.
Release the -rc kernel when it is st
Jens Axboe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 04 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The average user has learnt "rc1 == pre1". I don't expect that it
> > matters much at all.
>
> The average user and lkml reader, perhaps. But I don't understand
> why Linus refuses to use proper -preX/-rcX
1 - 100 of 351 matches
Mail list logo
