User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 28, 2010 19:01 UTC (Sat) by maks (subscriber, #32426)
Parent article: Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Your stats concerning the personal contribution to stable seem at first look pretty screwed:

First of all it is not easy to find the one that forwarded a particular patch to stable.
Secondly most in all times this random person gets gets showed into the Cc: of the stable patch and thus is not distinguisable from usual Cc's that happen to be listed there.

A quick grep in the stable queue 2.6.32 releases showed 47 contributions of mine, but I'm 100% sure not to be the top contributor of it. But that forwarded patch number is certainly a lower bound.

Please explain how you generated the stats concerning the most active contributor. Thanks.


(Log in to post comments)

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 28, 2010 19:16 UTC (Sat) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

I simply look at the author of each patch as is shown in the stable git repository.

A quick look through 2.6.32.y shows you CC'd on a number of patches, but you are not the author of them in stable or mainline. Am I missing something?

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 28, 2010 19:46 UTC (Sat) by josh (subscriber, #17465) [Link]

I think maks (AKA maximilian attems, one of the Debian kernel maintainers) is suggesting that in addition to crediting the author of the patch, for stable patches it seems appropriate to note the person who dug up a patch from mainline that fixed a particular bug and passed it along to stable@ for inclusion in a stable kernel, even if they didn't *write* the mainline patch. And I'd agree with that; while not the same metric as counting authors, it seems a useful metric for stable kernels.

On that note, thanks to maks and the other Debian kernel maintainers for doing an awesome job. :)

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 28, 2010 19:57 UTC (Sat) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

I agree it would be nice to credit people who do that kind of work. There is really no information trail at the moment which would make that possible, though. Maybe we need a Spotted-by: tag to mark patches directed to stable by people other than their author?

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 29, 2010 0:46 UTC (Sun) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link]

Yes, that would be nice.

Also, when there is no "spotted-by:" but there is a "cc: stable", it likely means that the patch author noticed it should go into stable.

That said, I think "stable-proposal-by" would be a better tag.

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 29, 2010 14:44 UTC (Sun) by eduard.munteanu (guest, #66641) [Link]

Hm, a simple "Signed-off-by:" should suffice. It's already standard practice for people who maintain their own tree and relay stuff upstream, and usually those trees are rebased often. So it might make sense to use that for singular cases as well (even if they're not merges).

This...

Signed-off-by: <original author>
Signed-off-by: <maintainer>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

Could turn into this...

Signed-off-by: <original author>
Signed-off-by: <spotter>
Signed-off-by: Greg KH

Possibly with some variation, such as whether or not you keep the maintainer in the Signed-off-by chain.

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 30, 2010 22:32 UTC (Mon) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link]

Hm, a simple "Signed-off-by:" should suffice.

Yeah. Here's a previous discussion, where Linus says:

So when you save a patch from oblivion by passing it on to the right person, and get it submitted when it was originally dropped by some reason, you're actually doing a fundamentally important job. Maybe it's just one small piece of the puzzle, but hey, you'd only get one small line in the changeset, so the credit (or blame ;) really is appropriate.

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 28, 2010 23:44 UTC (Sat) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

Yes, thanks Maks! I just loaded linux-image-2.6.35-1~experimental.2 on a Dell Latitude D430 sid and it fixed the suspend/resume problems. (Q though: why does it depend on a linux-base that doesn't exist?)

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 29, 2010 13:00 UTC (Sun) by maks (subscriber, #32426) [Link]

linux-base is used for the UUID transition. In Ubuntu it was the udev package that renamed the fstab and some bootloaders. afais linux-base is in experimental. When installing from exp one needs to tell apt to do so with ``-t'' switch aka:
apt-get install linux-image-2.6.35-trunk-amd64 -t experimental

Hope that helps otherwise please ask on debian-kernel mailinglist.

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 29, 2010 13:05 UTC (Sun) by maks (subscriber, #32426) [Link]

Thanks josh for clearing up and your nice comment. :)

As one can see on aboves authorship table Ben Hutchings is doing an incredible great job in the last year.

Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels

Posted Aug 29, 2010 12:56 UTC (Sun) by maks (subscriber, #32426) [Link]

Ok thanks for the explanations.

Got confused by the title of the table "Most active stable contributors" and thought it was about the ones that notify stable. Could then be renamed to "Most active stable authors".

Indeed there is currently no possibility to easily see who forwarded the patches to gregkh.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds