"For the last release, I stated that I thought the 2.6.22.12 release would be the last one in the 2.6.22.y series. Since then, I've received a number of other patches that would be nice to have in the .22.y tree," explained Greg KH. He continued:
"So, for a while, I'll keep the 2.6.22.y tree open, doing new releases every once in a while as they accumulate. I do this, for no other than the selfish reason that I use it every day on my openSuSE 10.3 boxes as that is the kernel base that release is on :)"
Greg KH and Chris Wright have been maintaining a -stable 2.6.x.y patchset for the 2.6.x and 2.6.(x-1) kernels since March of 2005. 2.4 stable kernel maintainer Willy Tarreau has also maintained patches against the 2.6.20 branch since August of 2007, though noted that he'll switch to maintaining the stable 2.6.22 branch once Greg finishes. Adrian Bunk also continues to maintain a -stable 2.6.16 branch of the Linux kernel.
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...>
Subject: Future of Linux 2.6.22.y series
Date: Nov 5, 2:13 pm 2007
For the last release, I stated that I thought the 2.6.22.12 release
would be the last one in the 2.6.22.y series. Since then, I've received
a number of other patches that would be nice to have in the .22.y tree.
So, for a while, I'll keep the 2.6.22.y tree open, doing new releases
every once in a while as they accumulate. I do this, for no other than
the selfish reason that I use it every day on my openSuSE 10.3 boxes as
that is the kernel base that release is on :)
If anyone has any objections or questions about this, please let me
know.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
From: Willy Tarreau <w@...>
Subject: Re: Future of Linux 2.6.22.y series
Date: Nov 6, 4:00 pm 2007
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 10:13:32AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> For the last release, I stated that I thought the 2.6.22.12 release
> would be the last one in the 2.6.22.y series. Since then, I've received
> a number of other patches that would be nice to have in the .22.y tree.
>
> So, for a while, I'll keep the 2.6.22.y tree open, doing new releases
> every once in a while as they accumulate. I do this, for no other than
> the selfish reason that I use it every day on my openSuSE 10.3 boxes as
> that is the kernel base that release is on :)
It certainly is one of the most valuable reasons. If all people were
"selfish" enough to contribute what they do only for themselves, we
would possibly have less out-of-tree code.
> If anyone has any objections or questions about this, please let me
> know.
Oh no, please keep it going on for as long as you want, I'll rebase my
version on it instead of 2.6.20.y ;-)
Thanks,
Willy
-
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...>
Subject: [patch 0/9] 2.6.22-stable review
Date: Nov 2, 1:37 pm 2007
This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.22.12 release.
There are 9 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let
us know. If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and wants
to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.
This should be the last 2.6.22-stable release unless we missed something
major and people complain loudly that we need to do another release.
These patches are sent out with a number of different people on the Cc:
line. If you wish to be a reviewer, please email stable@kernel.org
to add your name to the list. If you want to be off the reviewer list,
also email us.
Responses should be made by Monday, Nov 5, 2007, 16:00:00 UTC. Anything
received after that time might be too late.
thanks,
the -stable release team
-
Waste of scarce OSS resources
I see many OSS projects "weekly news" last updated 6+ months ago (Debian, Wine, ...). They could use some resource help. I guess I cannot really expect Suse people to help with Wine since your deal with M$ is trying to kill it. That's fine, my new earth-shattering SW will be GPL 3+ only so eventually you will sow what you have reaped! Maybe I will create a new license that is like GPL 3 but forbids integration with so-called distros that consist largely of GPL v3 violations.
I am posting this from kernel 2.6.23.1, which is stable although perhaps the performance is not "profiled" optimally, since there was so much to merge at the last minute. Why would anyone waste time regressing 2.0.X, 2.2.X, 2.4.X (don't know or care what current verion is), 2.6.5, 2.6.16, or even 2.6.22? Do something useful for the community (hint: work on **current stable levels of OSS software**), don't help preserve petrified, ancient, so-called "stable" software! The only reason to apply new patches to ancient software is a lazy person drawing a paycheck for doing essentialy nothing.
No
Having someone maintaining "stable" software is usefull at least to get something that works and which users can trust.
Otherwise, the same job would have to be done by every users, so the maintainers jobs are sparing n * number of real, non developper, Linux users job. So maintaining a stable branch is, indeed, certainly the best and the most efficient thing that can be conceived.
And without that, there would be virtually no users at all, therefore no room for developpers (that is, Linux would be very far from being what it became).
so if the kernel is stable
so if the kernel is stable *for you* you assume it is stable on any machine and any setup. you're really great!
unfortunately the real world does not fall for it. 2.6.23.y fails to function properly on many systems. as does 2.6.22 and so on. 2.4.35.x mostly works but start to lack drivers and functionality (yes, its ancient as you'd say).
Not even mentioning that the 2.4 series have been deeply reviewed for security by different teams - the 2.6 did not get any in depth review, thus new bugs are found every next day. That's not something many ppl want to run a server on.
To finish with your senseless (maybe just trollish) arguments, wine is updated FAR MORE OFTEN than the linux kernel is you count stable releases only. Think about it.
I dont like SuSE myself and
I dont like SuSE myself and I think its time for the community to step in against the companies pressure that we have around us. But WHAT THE HECK IS THIS:
"That's fine, my new earth-shattering SW will be GPL 3+ only so eventually you will sow what you have reaped!"
Why would _I_ as _user_ care about GPL3 at all? GPL3 was designed exactly to fight companies.
It tries to morally obligate you to follow the philosophy. I myself am fully aware of the patents clauses and strategies behind them, I studied them thoroughly (mostly in biotech sector), and I agree that the companies adjust the law to their needs to gain profit leverage, but this is the WRONG approach.
GPL3 is no longer tid for tad, it is an attempt to combat law implications that some entity does not want to see in effect.
Go away with GPL3. GPL2 was a decent license.
If you so much care about the crap companies do, then realize that you dont fight them with a license.
The GPL2 in essence has ALL the needed information in it already.
We dont need arbitrary restriction sets, we need to think precisely of how many chains we WANT and NEED to put on the user. GPL3 has "thought" about it - and put more chains. Not only on "companies" but on the user as well, since he will be restricted to use only certain software (since every software *must* be distributed anyway).
As long as there are alternatives to it, move on with statements like that.
Glaring inconsistencies
What, does that make any sense?
As far as I can tell, essentially you're saying that:
Let's look at the first two points for a second. What good is GPLv2 if, admittedly, companies can work around the spirit of the license? So essentially you end up with proprietary software that has the "free software" badge rubber-stamped on it.
Did you kind of forget that the reason GPLv2 exists in the first place is freedom -- because there is none left in this case? What's worse, a company (Novell) can take an enormous collection of free software and turn it into a proprietary product, while the initial developers are left liable to lawsuits? The source is there and all, but to use it, you need a license from Novell. This might sound terribly abstract, but essentially this is what the Microsoft-Novell pact means; fortunately they are not abusing this (yet?); they are "only" using it to spread FUD, which is also damaging.
Now, GPLv3 changes the license in a manner that companies couldn't work around the license -- the license would force them to comply. I see that as a fix for vulnerabilities in GPLv2. No, GPLv3 was not "designed to fight companies", GPLv3 was designed to preserve the freedoms that initially GPLv2 was supposed to grant.
So if my interpretation of your comment is correct, you like the fact that GPLv2 can be worked around and you resist any attempts to patch the vulnerabilities? Sounds like a proprietary software troll to me.
Wine "weekly news" author
Wine "weekly news" author has other things to do. Wine is doing great these days - I subscript git logs & mails from dev mailing list - great lecture :P
Novel = Microvel
Join the revolt!
http://boycottnovell.com/