I'd be worried.

Posted Aug 10, 2024 16:02 UTC (Sat) by jd (guest, #26381)
Parent article: A new kernel-version policy for Ubuntu

It's OK to ship RC kernels if you've an army of developers and QA testers who can essentially guarantee that the kernel is of release quality, but Canonical don't have that.

I've not used RC kernels in a home system since the Linux 1.x.y days, and even then strongly favoured the official releases plus Alan Cox patchset.

If Canonical do this, then I'm getting kernel sources and building my own kernels. I don't trust Canonical to get the build right.

I'd be worried.

Posted Aug 11, 2024 13:11 UTC (Sun) by bluca (subscriber, #118303) [Link]

That doesn't seem fair to me, Canonical absolutely does have an army of talented engineers, both in the kernel and QA areas, and more. The more interesting question would be what's the calculus that deemed spending extra finite resources on these tasks to be worth it, and for what rewards.

Ubuntu probably won't have to ship an RC to production.

Posted Aug 11, 2024 13:52 UTC (Sun) by gmatht (guest, #58961) [Link]

The plan is to pick the latest RC 8 weeks before release. Recently upstream has been releasing kernels 7-8 weeks after RC1. The last 32 releases have been within 8 weeks of RC1, so even if RC1 had come out the same day as Ubuntu picked the kernel, there would be a stable kernel released in time for Ubuntu's release. See my sheet of release dates (2005-2024).

The worst case in git log is 13 weeks to release a stable kernel after rc1, back in 2007. This is unlikely today because the developers were spending more time on each kernel then. If it did take 13 weeks to stabilise the kernel, and the RC1 was released the day Ubuntu chose a kernel, there would be 6 weeks when Ubuntu had an RC in production. In that case, Ubuntu would have an interim kernel in addition to the RC kernel. I understand it would not be necessary to ever use an RC kernel in production, even if you had to upgrade Ubuntu releases as soon as they came out.