Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released
Posted Apr 19, 2006 16:58 UTC (Wed)
by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Apr 19, 2006 17:33 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 19, 2006 17:38 UTC (Wed)
by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989)
[Link]
Posted Apr 19, 2006 17:48 UTC (Wed)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (2 responses)
personally I think that once a day is probably enough, anyone who cares more then that should subscribe to the -stable list and see the patches themselves, but beyond that what _is_ the right schedule?
right now they are doing a release each time they confirm the fix (and that the fix doesn't cause other problems), and the result is multiple releases per day. I agree that this seems a bit much.
but should they sit on the vunerability (or bug that causes crashes) for up to a day?, up to a week?, up to a month?
any value they pick will have people complaining, but what do people think is proper?
Posted Apr 19, 2006 18:01 UTC (Wed)
by dang (guest, #310)
[Link] (1 responses)
Can't recall exactly, but I *think* role of the stable tree is almost more for developers, certainly the pressure to form it came from that direction. The linus tree is sort of a reference tree that linus doesn't recommend betting the enterprise on ( that is what distros are for ), the distros put out polished kernels but those kernels can lag behind or race ahead of the linus kernel, and developers asked for something that they could work with. Voila, sucker tree.
Either way, I really appreciate the work the maintainers and reviewers put in to the tree and all of the timely releases.
Posted Apr 20, 2006 8:42 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
It's all very well saying "use your distro tree", but there are several distros (and it's a marketing point for Slack) that use vanilla "Linus" kernels.
Expecting distros to maintain a stable kernel is hurting the small guys who don't have the resources. That's why this plan to maintain one of the kernels as stable for a long while is so important.
Cheers,
Posted Apr 19, 2006 18:39 UTC (Wed)
by jimi (guest, #6655)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Apr 19, 2006 21:13 UTC (Wed)
by JoeF (guest, #4486)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 19, 2006 21:54 UTC (Wed)
by xorbe (guest, #3165)
[Link]
Posted Apr 20, 2006 2:27 UTC (Thu)
by Ross (guest, #4065)
[Link]
First post ! :-) Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released
Well, every day a new kernel release, honestly, isn't that a bit much ?
OTOH, is there a schedule for 2.4.33 ? RC2 is already 2 months old.
Alex
Doesn't quite strike me as "stable" for a stable kernel...Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released
It's a horse thing. Got a whole barn of 'em 'round back. bdump-bump.Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released
how long should they sit on known, published security holes before releasing an update to fix them?Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released
For the sort of bug fixes that go into the stable tree, I have no problem with frequent releases. Strikes me as odd that people complain about timely bug fixes. Isn't that supposed to be one of the hallmarks of open source development? Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released
The problem is that, at present, we don't have a stable and a development tree like we did in the past.Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released
Wol
You don't want bugs and security problems to be fixed? Stable does not mean problems will not be fixed. Stable does not mean releases will not be made in quick succession. Stable means that APIs are not supposed to change. Stable means that your computer should not crash. Stable means that a program or interface that worked prior to an update will continue to work after the update (assuming that program did not use the system in ways that are specifically undesired). But as long as we are unable to see into the future, stable cannot ever mean "competely problem free".Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released
Geez, I guess I stepped into a hornets' nest...Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released
Of course, security issues need to be fixed. Non-critical bug fixes usually go into the next release.
However, having such a flurry of issues may indicate that something is wrong with the process. Maybe more testing before a new release?
As somebody pointed out, the 2.4 series doesn't have "a release a day". Now, the issues may not apply to the 2.4 kernel, I don't know that.
Releases is what causes the wide-spread testing... what'cha gonna do? Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released
These minor bug fix updates are a great thing, I say. If you want them to
collate a weeks' worth of fixes, then just update once a week yourself!
I think it indicates something was wrong with the old process. There's no evidence this level of security issue wasn't present before, and eventually patched. It was just that it took longer to get the fix, and when it came out you got a lot of other changes you probably didn't care about.Stable kernel 2.6.16.9 released