FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Ubuntu Kernel Team

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-11-2009, 06:30 PM
"Luis R. Rodriguez"
 
Default Integrating 2.6.32.y for lucid

Will Lucid also not take the extra version for the uname -r?

I had to ask

Luis

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 11-13-2009, 12:37 PM
Andy Whitcroft
 
Default Integrating 2.6.32.y for lucid

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Will Lucid also not take the extra version for the uname -r?
>
> I had to ask

We are not currently planning on changing the name there no? That is the
kernel release number, and is in our case the Ubuntu release designation.
As the stable releases are not merged, but cherry picked often only in
part it is not clear it is valid to say we are 2.6.31.4 if we are not in
fact completely so.

-apw

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 11-13-2009, 06:46 PM
"Luis R. Rodriguez"
 
Default Integrating 2.6.32.y for lucid

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> Will Lucid also not take the extra version for the uname -r?
>>
>> I had to ask
>
> We are not currently planning on changing the name there no? *That is the
> kernel release number, and is in our case the Ubuntu release designation.
> As the stable releases are not merged, but cherry picked often only in
> part it is not clear it is valid to say we are 2.6.31.4 if we are not in
> fact completely so.

You guys are the ones with the experience in cherry picking patches
*out* and *in*, I'm curious would it be possible to move the
discussions that you have internally about these patches themselves
into the linux stable review list instead?

I don't think other distributions do this but I don't particularly
care about what others do, I'm trying to understand if something like
this *is* possible or not.

In other words it would seem to me your own careful analysis of stable
patches would be kindly welcomed for the stable releases and seriously
considered.

Luis

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 11-13-2009, 07:04 PM
Tim Gardner
 
Default Integrating 2.6.32.y for lucid

Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> Will Lucid also not take the extra version for the uname -r?
>>>
>>> I had to ask
>> We are not currently planning on changing the name there no? That is the
>> kernel release number, and is in our case the Ubuntu release designation.
>> As the stable releases are not merged, but cherry picked often only in
>> part it is not clear it is valid to say we are 2.6.31.4 if we are not in
>> fact completely so.
>
> You guys are the ones with the experience in cherry picking patches
> *out* and *in*, I'm curious would it be possible to move the
> discussions that you have internally about these patches themselves
> into the linux stable review list instead?
>
> I don't think other distributions do this but I don't particularly
> care about what others do, I'm trying to understand if something like
> this *is* possible or not.
>
> In other words it would seem to me your own careful analysis of stable
> patches would be kindly welcomed for the stable releases and seriously
> considered.
>
> Luis
>

AFAIK Stefan is already involved in the upstream stable review process.
We generally take a second look at the stable updates in case some of
them don't make sense from a distro perspective.

rtg
--
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 11-13-2009, 07:20 PM
"Luis R. Rodriguez"
 
Default Integrating 2.6.32.y for lucid

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com> wrote:
> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> Will Lucid also not take the extra version for the uname -r?
>>>>
>>>> I had to ask
>>> We are not currently planning on changing the name there no? *That is the
>>> kernel release number, and is in our case the Ubuntu release designation.
>>> As the stable releases are not merged, but cherry picked often only in
>>> part it is not clear it is valid to say we are 2.6.31.4 if we are not in
>>> fact completely so.
>>
>> You guys are the ones with the experience in cherry picking patches
>> *out* and *in*, I'm curious would it be possible to move the
>> discussions that you have internally about these patches themselves
>> into the linux stable review list instead?
>>
>> I don't think other distributions do this but I don't particularly
>> care about what others do, I'm trying to understand if something like
>> this *is* possible or not.
>>
>> In other words it would seem to me your own careful analysis of stable
>> patches would be kindly welcomed for the stable releases and seriously
>> considered.
>>
>> * Luis
>>
>
> AFAIK Stefan is already involved in the upstream stable review process.
> We generally take a second look at the stable updates in case some of
> them don't make sense from a distro perspective.

Understood -- I'm just wondering if the arguments to drop a patch
might be useful for stable upstream discussion as well.

Luis

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 11-16-2009, 04:34 PM
Stefan Bader
 
Default Integrating 2.6.32.y for lucid

Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com> wrote:
>> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>> Will Lucid also not take the extra version for the uname -r?
>>>>>
>>>>> I had to ask
>>>> We are not currently planning on changing the name there no? That is the
>>>> kernel release number, and is in our case the Ubuntu release designation.
>>>> As the stable releases are not merged, but cherry picked often only in
>>>> part it is not clear it is valid to say we are 2.6.31.4 if we are not in
>>>> fact completely so.
>>> You guys are the ones with the experience in cherry picking patches
>>> *out* and *in*, I'm curious would it be possible to move the
>>> discussions that you have internally about these patches themselves
>>> into the linux stable review list instead?
>>>
>>> I don't think other distributions do this but I don't particularly
>>> care about what others do, I'm trying to understand if something like
>>> this *is* possible or not.
>>>
>>> In other words it would seem to me your own careful analysis of stable
>>> patches would be kindly welcomed for the stable releases and seriously
>>> considered.
>>>
>>> Luis
>>>
>> AFAIK Stefan is already involved in the upstream stable review process.
>> We generally take a second look at the stable updates in case some of
>> them don't make sense from a distro perspective.
>
> Understood -- I'm just wondering if the arguments to drop a patch
> might be useful for stable upstream discussion as well.
>
> Luis
>

I think I will going to give a bit more feedback there. I often have/had the
problem of the deadline and receiving the review mail clashed a bit with working
hours, so I felt the feedback would have come too late anyways. I have been asking
whether potentially this could be a bit prolongued (especially as going over a hundred
patches takes a bit of time, not that its always that much).

-Stefan

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 11-16-2009, 11:25 PM
"Luis R. Rodriguez"
 
Default Integrating 2.6.32.y for lucid

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Stefan Bader
<stefan.bader@canonical.com> wrote:
> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com> wrote:
>>> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>>> Will Lucid also not take the extra version for the uname -r?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had to ask
>>>>> We are not currently planning on changing the name there no? *That is the
>>>>> kernel release number, and is in our case the Ubuntu release designation.
>>>>> As the stable releases are not merged, but cherry picked often only in
>>>>> part it is not clear it is valid to say we are 2.6.31.4 if we are not in
>>>>> fact completely so.
>>>> You guys are the ones with the experience in cherry picking patches
>>>> *out* and *in*, I'm curious would it be possible to move the
>>>> discussions that you have internally about these patches themselves
>>>> into the linux stable review list instead?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think other distributions do this but I don't particularly
>>>> care about what others do, I'm trying to understand if something like
>>>> this *is* possible or not.
>>>>
>>>> In other words it would seem to me your own careful analysis of stable
>>>> patches would be kindly welcomed for the stable releases and seriously
>>>> considered.
>>>>
>>>> * Luis
>>>>
>>> AFAIK Stefan is already involved in the upstream stable review process.
>>> We generally take a second look at the stable updates in case some of
>>> them don't make sense from a distro perspective.
>>
>> Understood -- I'm just wondering if the arguments to drop a patch
>> might be useful for stable upstream discussion as well.
>>
>> * Luis
>>
>
> I think I will going to give a bit more feedback there. I often have/had the
> problem of the deadline and receiving the review mail clashed a bit with working
> hours, so I felt the feedback would have come too late anyways. I have been asking
> whether potentially this could be a bit prolongued (especially as going over a hundred
> patches takes a bit of time, not that its always that much).

Ah yeah, I can see that, thanks for the elaboration on this. So if the
time for stable review fixes got extended you may possibly consider
using the upstream kernels extra versions as-is given that you'd be
more content with them? How much time do you think is reasonable that
could help with this?

Luis

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 
Old 11-17-2009, 04:38 AM
Stefan Bader
 
Default Integrating 2.6.32.y for lucid

Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Stefan Bader
> <stefan.bader@canonical.com> wrote:
>> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>>>> Will Lucid also not take the extra version for the uname -r?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had to ask
>>>>>> We are not currently planning on changing the name there no? That is the
>>>>>> kernel release number, and is in our case the Ubuntu release designation.
>>>>>> As the stable releases are not merged, but cherry picked often only in
>>>>>> part it is not clear it is valid to say we are 2.6.31.4 if we are not in
>>>>>> fact completely so.
>>>>> You guys are the ones with the experience in cherry picking patches
>>>>> *out* and *in*, I'm curious would it be possible to move the
>>>>> discussions that you have internally about these patches themselves
>>>>> into the linux stable review list instead?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think other distributions do this but I don't particularly
>>>>> care about what others do, I'm trying to understand if something like
>>>>> this *is* possible or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words it would seem to me your own careful analysis of stable
>>>>> patches would be kindly welcomed for the stable releases and seriously
>>>>> considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Luis
>>>>>
>>>> AFAIK Stefan is already involved in the upstream stable review process.
>>>> We generally take a second look at the stable updates in case some of
>>>> them don't make sense from a distro perspective.
>>> Understood -- I'm just wondering if the arguments to drop a patch
>>> might be useful for stable upstream discussion as well.
>>>
>>> Luis
>>>
>> I think I will going to give a bit more feedback there. I often have/had the
>> problem of the deadline and receiving the review mail clashed a bit with working
>> hours, so I felt the feedback would have come too late anyways. I have been asking
>> whether potentially this could be a bit prolongued (especially as going over a hundred
>> patches takes a bit of time, not that its always that much).
>
> Ah yeah, I can see that, thanks for the elaboration on this. So if the
> time for stable review fixes got extended you may possibly consider
> using the upstream kernels extra versions as-is given that you'd be
> more content with them? How much time do you think is reasonable that
> could help with this?
>
> Luis

No, I do not think one necessarily leads to the other. There still could
and actually just were cases for which we decided not to go with upstream
stable (in that case the removal of some drivers). So carrying the stable
version number in the Ubuntu version does not really give more meaning to
it.
But having some review time helps to feels more confident in pulling those
into a stable kernel and hopefully being able to give some useful feedback
to upstream.

Stefan

--
kernel-team mailing list
kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kernel-team
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:14 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org