Выразил (в очередной раз) свою озабоченность от Торвальдовской политики присвоения статуса …
… «стабильное ядро»:
Comment #9 From Greg Kroah-Hartman 2009-07-31 22:27:46 (-) [reply] -------
2.6.29 is end of life and is no longer maintained by the community, nor any
distro that I know of, sorry.
What is keeping you from moving to 2.6.30.3?
------- Comment #10 From Greg Kroah-Hartman 2009-07-31 22:28:07 (-) [reply] -------
Anyway, closing this out as it's now resolved.
------- Comment #11 From Igor M Podlesny 2009-07-31 22:30:24 (-) [reply] -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> 2.6.29 is end of life and is no longer maintained by the community, nor any
> distro that I know of, sorry.
Meanwhile 2.6.30 "stable" is rather buggy, or, at least "raw":
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13760
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13876
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13219
------- Comment #12 From Igor M Podlesny 2009-07-31 22:32:38 (-) [reply] -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> 2.6.29 is end of life and is no longer maintained by the community, nor any
> distro that I know of, sorry.
>
> What is keeping you from moving to 2.6.30.3?
2.6.30.4 you probably meant? See above. Actually, I'm even sometimes thinking
of moving to 2.6.18-RHEL, because, it seems RHEL's guys do interpret term
"stable" in its original meaning.
------- Comment #13 From Greg Kroah-Hartman 2009-08-01 00:48:36 (-) [reply] -------
Yes, sorry, 2.6.30.4.
If you feel RHEL is better suited to your needs, then by all means, please use
it. But note that you have to get support for it from Red Hat, not us.
good luck.
------- Comment #14 From Igor M Podlesny 2009-08-01 05:54:50 (-) [reply] -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Yes, sorry, 2.6.30.4.
>
> If you feel RHEL is better suited to your needs, then by all means, please use
> it. But note that you have to get support for it from Red Hat, not us.
You're missing the point. I wouldn't have to get any support from Red Hat,
cause if theirs version of kernel is real much more stable there's no need to
bother Red Hat with.
Also, I had been already using RHEL's patches already, doing my own patch
applying and even some backporting:
changeset: 75:cbe7e2ed801c
branch: ck
tag: tip
user: poige@asix.localdomain
date: Mon Jan 12 07:08:35 2009 +0700
summary: ck: mm-kswapd_inherit_prio-1.patch
changeset: 74:d5b4737bb7f3
branch: ck
user: poige@asix.localdomain
date: Mon Jan 12 07:06:50 2009 +0700
summary: ck: -VM_SWAPPINESS +VM_MAPPED
changeset: 73:bc9101e85543
branch: BP_2.6.24
user: poige@asix.localdomain
date: Wed Jan 07 06:35:00 2009 +0700
summary: bp of 58e78475ec706f93e0cc049449ffd11fbfdadb3e
changeset: 72:73567fd536e3
branch: BP_2.6.24
user: poige@asix.localdomain
date: Wed Jan 07 06:34:16 2009 +0700
summary: bp of 80d352374be7ac88a23fb427d146ac9a71beff90
changeset: 71:8ec81986658a
branch: BP_2.6.24
parent: 20:f5f0262953f8
user: poige@asix.localdomain
date: Tue Jan 06 16:52:13 2009 +0700
summary: drivers/hwmon/it87.c backported from 2.6.24
(and so on).
Everything was fine with that ...
(and I even gave a "support" :-) in return, having found a
bug, and its fix in more recent kernels, which Red Hat
missed to backport:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478638 )
... except one thing -- 2.6.18 is too old, even with backported patches.
And you (in sense of you had using, when said "us") prefer to feel yourself
injured, when faced with the real state of things with all of your "shiny new
kernels" -- it's said, but true, that production grade meaning of "stable Linux
kernel" still means 2.6.*18*! There's 2.6.*31*(!) almost ready...
Yes, I understand, that probably, without ongoing work on new kernels,
2.6.18-RHEL wouldn't have went much ahead in terms of stability; many bug fixes
are backports. That's true as well.
But what would be really nice, is changing the policy of declaring stable
kernels @ kernel.org's website and choosing more appropriate versions of kernel
for support. As far as I know, you're maintaining 2.6.27.something as some kind
of "more stable" than "stable". Well, I didn't hear of neither a person who
uses it, "nor any distro that I know of, sorry". :-)
2.6.29.xx looks like more reasonable version to support and instead you're
giving it an EOL. Nice?...
> good luck.
Greg... I even was not asking *you* personally to backport the patchset.
Wouldn't you mind please?...
------- Comment #15 From Igor M Podlesny 2009-08-01 05:57:33 (-) [reply] -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
[...]
> for support. As far as I know, you're maintaining 2.6.27.something as some kind
> of "more stable" than "stable". Well, I didn't hear of neither a person who
> uses it, "nor any distro that I know of, sorry". :-)
Actually, there's even no mention of 2.6.27 @ www.kernel.org. At all.
(Полная версия)
Сомневаюсь, конечно, что это что-либо изменит - «партия сказала «стабильное», значит «стабильное»»…
Comment #9 From Greg Kroah-Hartman 2009-07-31 22:27:46 (-) [reply] -------
2.6.29 is end of life and is no longer maintained by the community, nor any
distro that I know of, sorry.
What is keeping you from moving to 2.6.30.3?
------- Comment #10 From Greg Kroah-Hartman 2009-07-31 22:28:07 (-) [reply] -------
Anyway, closing this out as it's now resolved.
------- Comment #11 From Igor M Podlesny 2009-07-31 22:30:24 (-) [reply] -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> 2.6.29 is end of life and is no longer maintained by the community, nor any
> distro that I know of, sorry.
Meanwhile 2.6.30 "stable" is rather buggy, or, at least "raw":
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13760
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13876
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13219
------- Comment #12 From Igor M Podlesny 2009-07-31 22:32:38 (-) [reply] -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> 2.6.29 is end of life and is no longer maintained by the community, nor any
> distro that I know of, sorry.
>
> What is keeping you from moving to 2.6.30.3?
2.6.30.4 you probably meant? See above. Actually, I'm even sometimes thinking
of moving to 2.6.18-RHEL, because, it seems RHEL's guys do interpret term
"stable" in its original meaning.
------- Comment #13 From Greg Kroah-Hartman 2009-08-01 00:48:36 (-) [reply] -------
Yes, sorry, 2.6.30.4.
If you feel RHEL is better suited to your needs, then by all means, please use
it. But note that you have to get support for it from Red Hat, not us.
good luck.
------- Comment #14 From Igor M Podlesny 2009-08-01 05:54:50 (-) [reply] -------
(In reply to comment #13)
> Yes, sorry, 2.6.30.4.
>
> If you feel RHEL is better suited to your needs, then by all means, please use
> it. But note that you have to get support for it from Red Hat, not us.
You're missing the point. I wouldn't have to get any support from Red Hat,
cause if theirs version of kernel is real much more stable there's no need to
bother Red Hat with.
Also, I had been already using RHEL's patches already, doing my own patch
applying and even some backporting:
changeset: 75:cbe7e2ed801c
branch: ck
tag: tip
user: poige@asix.localdomain
date: Mon Jan 12 07:08:35 2009 +0700
summary: ck: mm-kswapd_inherit_prio-1.patch
changeset: 74:d5b4737bb7f3
branch: ck
user: poige@asix.localdomain
date: Mon Jan 12 07:06:50 2009 +0700
summary: ck: -VM_SWAPPINESS +VM_MAPPED
changeset: 73:bc9101e85543
branch: BP_2.6.24
user: poige@asix.localdomain
date: Wed Jan 07 06:35:00 2009 +0700
summary: bp of 58e78475ec706f93e0cc049449ffd11fbfdadb3e
changeset: 72:73567fd536e3
branch: BP_2.6.24
user: poige@asix.localdomain
date: Wed Jan 07 06:34:16 2009 +0700
summary: bp of 80d352374be7ac88a23fb427d146ac9a71beff90
changeset: 71:8ec81986658a
branch: BP_2.6.24
parent: 20:f5f0262953f8
user: poige@asix.localdomain
date: Tue Jan 06 16:52:13 2009 +0700
summary: drivers/hwmon/it87.c backported from 2.6.24
(and so on).
Everything was fine with that ...
(and I even gave a "support" :-) in return, having found a
bug, and its fix in more recent kernels, which Red Hat
missed to backport:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478638 )
... except one thing -- 2.6.18 is too old, even with backported patches.
And you (in sense of you had using, when said "us") prefer to feel yourself
injured, when faced with the real state of things with all of your "shiny new
kernels" -- it's said, but true, that production grade meaning of "stable Linux
kernel" still means 2.6.*18*! There's 2.6.*31*(!) almost ready...
Yes, I understand, that probably, without ongoing work on new kernels,
2.6.18-RHEL wouldn't have went much ahead in terms of stability; many bug fixes
are backports. That's true as well.
But what would be really nice, is changing the policy of declaring stable
kernels @ kernel.org's website and choosing more appropriate versions of kernel
for support. As far as I know, you're maintaining 2.6.27.something as some kind
of "more stable" than "stable". Well, I didn't hear of neither a person who
uses it, "nor any distro that I know of, sorry". :-)
2.6.29.xx looks like more reasonable version to support and instead you're
giving it an EOL. Nice?...
> good luck.
Greg... I even was not asking *you* personally to backport the patchset.
Wouldn't you mind please?...
------- Comment #15 From Igor M Podlesny 2009-08-01 05:57:33 (-) [reply] -------
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #13)
[...]
> for support. As far as I know, you're maintaining 2.6.27.something as some kind
> of "more stable" than "stable". Well, I didn't hear of neither a person who
> uses it, "nor any distro that I know of, sorry". :-)
Actually, there's even no mention of 2.6.27 @ www.kernel.org. At all.
(Полная версия)
Сомневаюсь, конечно, что это что-либо изменит - «партия сказала «стабильное», значит «стабильное»»…