Horms wrote:
> By my calculations that is 3am on Saturday morning in Japan,
> I am not sure I will be in an appropriate state to be having meetings
> at that time.
It's noon here, I may be awake for the meeting, if so I will attend. No
promises however.
> My 2c worth here is that frankly 2.6 is highly problematic in terms
> of trying to stabalise. We clearly have a number of bugs in 2.6.8 that
> are unlikely to ever be resolved - e.g. ACPI. And in many cases
> 2.6.10 is in much better shape. But there is still more or less a flood
> of fixes going in to 2.6 upstream, for instance there are any number
> of fixes to the network since 2.6.10 (though admitedly probably not
> as many as between 2.6.9 and 2.6.10).
>
> So I am definately of the oppinion that we would be trading old bugs for
> new. But that may not be such a bad thing. For one, we know some of the
> bugs in 2.6.8 that hurt us (xfs, ACPI, ...) are in a better state in
> 2.6.10 - I am personally running 2.6.10 on systems that I use 2.6 on,
> and so are other people I work with, and its because 2.6.8 didn't work
> for one reason or another. For another it would be an excellent chance
> reduce from 3 (2.6.8,9,10) to one, the number of 2.6 kernels on d.o, and
> thus focus our efforts on one 2.6. In fact, if I was asked for one
> recommendation that would be it.
If the kernel team has been unable to concentrate on 2.6.8 now that
2.6.9 and .10 have come out, why do you think you'll be able to
concentrate on 2.6.10 once .11 and .12 come out?
Since changing the kernel version used by the installer will delay the
sarge release by at least a couple of months, the existence of yet more
kernel versions seems likely.
Why can't the kernel team backport fixes to 2.6.8?
> The 2.6 development model places the onus of stabalisation much more
> firmly on the distributions. I am of the mind that Debian would have
> more chance in getting things stabalised if we can focus on one 2.6
> kernel.
Yes and we should have been focusing on one kernel since the decision
was made several months ago to stop looking at newer kernel versions for
sarge. If you go ahead and change the kernel now, after we've just
finished[1] dealing with the fallout of updating both gnome and kde to
new upstream versions in sarge, and when i386 is no longer installable
at all because of a new parted upstream that was just shoved in (w/o
consulting me :-( ), then we may as well rename sarge to "etch" and
"rc2" to "sarge release" and be done with it.
--
see shy jo
[1] Well not entirely finished; the weekly CD build does not even have a
usable desktop task on it right now.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature