With release v2.5.40 today of the Linux development kernel, Linus Torvalds reminded the Linux development community that there is a kernel development freeze on October 31'st. Linus added that he will be away the last week of the month, so the last day for new features really is October 20th, "unless you've got a really good and scary costume". In a cheery threat, he also pointed out that he's perfectly happy with the features already introduced in 2.5, so the closer to the deadline submissions come the less likely he will be compelled to merge them.
In the same email he addressed a comment to non-kernel developers:
"And if it wasn't clear to the non-2.5-development people out there, yes you _should_ also test this code out even before the freeze. The IDE layer shouldn't be all that scary any more, and while there are still silly things like trivially non-compiling setups etc, it's generally a good idea to try things out as widely as possible before it's getting too late to complain about things.."
From: Linus Torvalds
To: Kernel Mailing List
Subject: Linux v2.5.40 - and a feature freeze reminder
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 00:32:47 -0700 (PDT)
Merges with all the regular suspects - Al's partitioning, Andrew on VM,
USB, networking, sparc, net drivers. And Ingo has been working on fixing
up the inevitable details in the thread signal stuff, as well as updating
the smp-scalable timer code.
And ISDN, kbuild, ARM, uml...
And a small reminder that we're now officially in the last month of
features, and since I'm going to be away basically the last week of
October, so I actually personally consider Oct 20th to be the drop-date,
unless you've got a really good and scary costume.. So don't try to leave
it to the last day.
[ And if that didn't worry you, the following should: I'm perfectly happy
with the kernel, and as such whatever features _you_ think are missing
might just not weigh too much with me if you then also make the mistake
of trying to leave them for the last crunch. I might just take the last
day off too ;]
And if it wasn't clear to the non-2.5-development people out there, yes
you _should_ also test this code out even before the freeze. The IDE layer
shouldn't be all that scary any more, and while there are still silly
things like trivially non-compiling setups etc, it's generally a good idea
to try things out as widely as possible before it's getting too late to
complain about things..
Linus
----
Summary of changes from v2.5.39 to v2.5.40
============================================
Art Haas :
o C99 designated initializers for bfs, minix, efs, openpromfs,
ramfs, exportfs, devpts, romfs, proc, isofs, ufs, cramfs
Alex Williamson :
o fs/partitions/sun.c: raid autodetect for sun disk labels
:
o Error handler general clean up
Bart Schuymer :
o net/bridge/br_input.c: Missing read_unlock
:
o fix endless loop walking the MADT
Dave Jones :
o trivial bits
o Various trivial module related fixes
o include fix
Rolf Fokkens :
o sg.c and USER_HZ, kernel 2.5.37
Jeff Dike :
o UML updates to allow it to build and run as 2.5.38
o Cleaned up arch/um/Makefile and updated the ubd driver
o Trivial fix to the ubd driver
o One last fix to the ubd driver, allowing UML to boot
o Bumped EXTRAVERSION for the 2.4 fixes and highmem support
o Added highmem support to uml
o Fixed highmem support for 2.5
o Missed a change to fixmap.h in the highmem update
o Updated to build with the 2.5.39 kbuild
o One last fix to make the non-highmem build work
o Added CONFIG_HIGHMEM to defconfig
o Moved the linker script from vmlinux.lds.S, which will be empty, to
uml.ld.S.
o main.o needed to be added to the vmlinux dependencies so it would
build
:
o [ARM PATCH] 1238/1: Accelent PXA IDP config cleanups This patch
brings support for the PXA-IDP up to 2.5.30, plus adds support in
head.S for low level serial debugging support.
James Bottomley :
o [SCSI 53c700] flag as able to do I/O from highmem
Jes Sorensen :
o acenic net drvr bug fix: remove '=' typo in intr mask argument to
writel()
Dominik Brodowski :
o (1/5) CPUfreq core
o (2/5) CPUfreq i386 core
o (3/5) CPUfreq i386 drivers
o (4/5) CPUfreq Documentation
o (5/5) CPUfreq /proc/sys/cpu/ add-on patch
o CPUfreq i386 drivers update
o cpufreq bugfixes
o cpufreq crashes on P4
Peter W
notable in this release: fina
notable in this release: finally the merge of cpufreq, which will make laptop users very happy :O)))))))
UDF Write support for CD-R/RW (packet writing)?
I sincerely hope we get packet writing in 2.6/3.0
Jens Axboe has the patches, but will they get included before the code freeze?
The Win-people have had this feature for ages - and now DVD burners start to appear...
Please, please, pretty please :o)
Make a noise
Post a query to lkml, otherwise this won't get noticed. Packet writing is probably very important for many users (probably moreso than the new IDE layer or threading architecture), but you will need to push for its inclusion.
Mount Rainier support
I also hope that packet writing gets into the newest kernel. Especially I hope for Mount Rainier support which makes using CD-RW realy easy and more reliable. Just insert the CD-RW and use it like you use HD or floppy.
UDF Write support for CD-R/RW (packet writing)
I sincerely hope we will get packet writing in 2.6/3.0. Jens Axboe has the patches but will they be included before the code freeze?
The Win-people have had this for ages - and now DVD burners start to become common....
Please, please, pretty please :o)
Hate to sound like a bastard.....
but will the initial 2.6/3.0 releases be reasonably *stable* this time around? I remember always gloating to my friends how stable Linux was (I started using Linux with RedHat 5.2, a 2.0.x series kernel distro) and indeed it was for the 2.0.x and 2.2.x series for me. No matter how bad X would lock up or an app would crash, it was easily fixed with ctrl-alt-backspace or kill -9 or something and the system would just continue to chug. Then 2.4 came out - and that came to halt. Even with the more recent versions of the kernel X can simply lock everything up, and yet that never happens to me under FreeBSD (4.6.2 is the version I currently use). I do not expect the very first stable releases to be perfect but I wonder why/how the initial 2.4 kernels were seen in that light at all. Please don't think I'm ungrateful, 2.4 did bring us a lot of good despite its early problems - the multitude of journaling file systems, the much improved SMP support, improved networking performance, etc. With the last few releases, X probs or not, I've been reasonably happy and stability seems reasonable. Yet still...I wonder if I should try the first few releases of 2.6/3.0 once their released....the geek side of me tells me stability or not I'll do it, but still....
Linux 2.4.0
There will always be bugs. Linus has said that he released Linux 2.4.0 to increase the number of people using/testing it. His feeling was that most users are not compiling their own kernels. Most users would install a Linux distribution that had chosen a good kernel (or patched it themselves, like Red Hat does).
I suspect is that Linux 2.6.0/3.0.0 will be even buggy than Linux 2.4.0. LOTS of low-level code has changed during Linux 2.5: VM, device drivers, new file systems, new IDE code, then IDE code ripped out, pre-emptible kernel. These changes will take a LONG time to "settle down".
Poor Excuse
This is the same poster as the original - I need to get an account. :-) Personally I think this is a poor excuse - so, essentially, 2.3 was named 2.4 in order to force further testing? Ick! I understand there will be some rough edges, but do you remember the swap-storms and data loss associated with the early 2.4's? I cannot accept that as an excuse. Look, no ones lives depends on 2.6/3.0 - I'd be more then willing to wait three years on it if it means its that much more stable and ready, I see no point in rushing it out the door. The 2.4 series will hold us just fine until then. Please don't see this as a flame towards you as its certainly not. Your not the only one to give such answers, apparently that was Linus's reasons. Regardless I do not agree. Ah well, thats life...
p.s. you've cited the various low-level changes as possible reasons that 2.6/3.0 could turn out even buggier then 2.4 was initially. I started thinking - what about Red Hat Advanced Server? They've apparently rolled back some of the 2.5 features into the 2.4 kernel (such as async i/o for example) and I highly doubt Red Hat would have done that if it was all that unstable. Perhaps this time around it won't be that bad, especially since we seem to have more professionals on board from such places as IBM, HP, SGI etc contributing to development. We shall see...
It's just a number
While i do agree that if the .even series are reported as stable, they should be, I think Linus' point about users testing it is valid. At some point they just decide that this version of the .odd kernel is now .even, right? It's just a number... And really, only the users who know what they're doing are going to be recompiling their own kernel.
Also, as you mentioned, if 2.4.current is stable, and 2.6.0 is not, then you're able to make the decision to just keep using 2.4 until 2.6 is stable.
Though, to take up an opposing point to myself, the .even kernels are supposed to be stable, right? As in, by naming a kernel .even, Linus is effectively saying that in his opinion, the kernel is stable. If that's not true, then you do feel somewhat mislead, i would imagine.
It is also probably true that 'production' systems get fixed faster than 'development' systems. I think that was Linus' feeling in getting 2.4 out. I don't think Linus feels responsible to anyone except himself. He will do 'bad' things if he thinks it will make the kernel better. Example of that is the way the VM system was suddenly changed midway through 2.4. Complaints were thick and heavy, but it resulted in a better kernel, right? This is, i think, the way Linus works.
Catch 22
The problem Linus faced was that the 2.3 kernel wasn't going to get much stabler without more testers, but it wasn't going to get more users testing it until he released it as 2.4.
Before 2.4.0 was released there was about over 6 months of 2.4.0-testX versions, and from memory the number "showstopper" bugs were fairly low near the end. Maybe they just need a looser definition of "showstopper" :).
Linus will do whatever he wants, others will provide stability
Who are you to tell Linus how to run his hobby? If he wants to release a 2.6 (or 42 for that matter) kernel that's his business. In the land of free software you have the freedom to run it or not as you please.
The way you tell if the kernel is considered stable isn't by looking at whether the release number is odd or even. Rather you look who signs the release notes. If they're written by Linus it's not a stable kernel. If they come from Marcelo (2.4) it might be a stable kernel. If they come from Alan (2.2) or Dave (2.0) it's definitely a stable kernel.
Console rewrite
I really wish the console rewrite to get in for 2.6/3.0
http://linuxconsole.sourceforge.net/
It seems very nice.
Re: Console rewrite
It's been getting in, piece by piece, for quite some time already.
Re: Re: Console rewrite
Huh? Where are the screenshots? ;)