[opensuse-factory] Factory versus Tumbleweed : kernel versions

newer
[opensuse-factory] Updating your...

older
[opensuse-factory] syslog-ng 3.3...

Bruno Friedmann

22 May 2011 22 May '11

09:37

Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ? Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ? -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member & Ambassador GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Show replies by date

Greg KH

22 May 22 May

14:34

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...

Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ?

Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ?

It should, and it will catch up, I wanted to get .39 into Tumbleweed due to it fixing a number of bugs that people were reporting. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Stephan Kulow

23 May 23 May

09:42

Am Sonntag, 22. Mai 2011 schrieb Greg KH:

...

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...
Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ?

Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ?

It should, and it will catch up, I wanted to get .39 into Tumbleweed due to it fixing a number of bugs that people were reporting.

Yeah. Thanks for ignoring these bugs in factory. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Greg KH

13:14

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:42:15AM +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

Am Sonntag, 22. Mai 2011 schrieb Greg KH:

...
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...
Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ?

Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ?

It should, and it will catch up, I wanted to get .39 into Tumbleweed due to it fixing a number of bugs that people were reporting.

Yeah. Thanks for ignoring these bugs in factory.

I don't at all, it's just that I don't do the kernel checkin to Factory, so I can't control it. Either I wait for it to hit Factory and delay the bug fixes to users, or check it into Tumbleweed now to help the users who are hit by this. I'm sure you would do the same thing if you were in my situation. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Jeff Mahoney

13:35

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/23/2011 05:42 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

Am Sonntag, 22. Mai 2011 schrieb Greg KH:

...
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...
Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ?

Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ?

It should, and it will catch up, I wanted to get .39 into Tumbleweed due to it fixing a number of bugs that people were reporting.

Yeah. Thanks for ignoring these bugs in factory.

The Factory checkin is coming today. There was a build failure in the Xen kernel due to gcc 4.6 being more aggressive about certain types of checks. Jan fixed that this morning and I'll check it in. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SuSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk3aYqIACgkQLPWxlyuTD7J+EwCfc1K58F5c+CgECMsuLCbgVpzr JQUAnRh7Gn6NsnnYY7JIqmJcYwnZomS5 =QIRz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Jeff Mahoney

13:48

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/23/2011 09:35 AM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:

...

On 05/23/2011 05:42 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...
Am Sonntag, 22. Mai 2011 schrieb Greg KH:

...
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...
Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ?

Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ?

It should, and it will catch up, I wanted to get .39 into Tumbleweed due to it fixing a number of bugs that people were reporting.

Yeah. Thanks for ignoring these bugs in factory.

The Factory checkin is coming today. There was a build failure in the Xen kernel due to gcc 4.6 being more aggressive about certain types of checks. Jan fixed that this morning and I'll check it in.

SR 71043 - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SuSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk3aZZEACgkQLPWxlyuTD7LvxQCePIYXe4EamJqKzLnYd5x7rouU 8QwAnRUaygH7upjJ2uuUayaL0MXGTaAO =9KiY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Stefan Seyfried

14:07

Am Mon, 23 May 2011 09:35:30 -0400 schrieb Jeff Mahoney :

...

On 05/23/2011 05:42 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...
Yeah. Thanks for ignoring these bugs in factory.

The Factory checkin is coming today. There was a build failure in the Xen kernel due to gcc 4.6 being more aggressive about certain types of checks. Jan fixed that this morning and I'll check it in.

Additionally, i586 died with an ICE of gcc46 in Kernel:HEAD. Fortunately I'm using x86_64 :-) -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Brian K. White

21:42

On 5/22/2011 10:34 AM, Greg KH wrote:

...

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...
Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ?

Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ?

It should, and it will catch up, I wanted to get .39 into Tumbleweed due to it fixing a number of bugs that people were reporting.

thanks,

greg k-h

This would be one example item of many of what I mean when I say things like "TW is not advisable, has no plan, is a great idea but not well implemented etc..." The fact that a bug is definitely in a current kernel, and supposedly fixed in a newer kernel, or even if it's definitely fixed in the newer kernel, does NOT make that kernel a suitable kernel for a repo that you tell people is "stable". How well tested is this kernel before you put it into TW? It supposedly fixes this bug, but breaks what else? It should have been in Factory or kotd or some repo that is used by some people for some amount of time before it goes into TW, or else you should take out the word stable from all TW documentation and references. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Greg KH

22:15

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 05:42:31PM -0400, Brian K. White wrote:

...

On 5/22/2011 10:34 AM, Greg KH wrote:

...
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...
Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ?

Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ?

It should, and it will catch up, I wanted to get .39 into Tumbleweed due to it fixing a number of bugs that people were reporting.

thanks,

greg k-h

This would be one example item of many of what I mean when I say things like "TW is not advisable, has no plan, is a great idea but not well implemented etc..."

Since how does this show that Tumbleweed has no plan or is not will implemented?

...

The fact that a bug is definitely in a current kernel, and supposedly fixed in a newer kernel, or even if it's definitely fixed in the newer kernel, does NOT make that kernel a suitable kernel for a repo that you tell people is "stable".

Why do you feel not?

...

How well tested is this kernel before you put it into TW?

It was tested for 3 months.

...

It supposedly fixes this bug, but breaks what else?

It breaks nothing else. :)

...

It should have been in Factory or kotd or some repo that is used by some people for some amount of time before it goes into TW, or else you should take out the word stable from all TW documentation and references.

I'm sorry you feel this way. It sounds like Tumbleweed is something that you might not want to run, and that's fine, no one is forcing you to do so. But to say that there is no testing, plans, or stability is unfair and false. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

John Andrews (swerdna)

23:25

On 05/24/2011 08:15 AM, Greg KH wrote:

...

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 05:42:31PM -0400, Brian K. White wrote:

...
On 5/22/2011 10:34 AM, Greg KH wrote:

...
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...
Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ?

Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ?

It should, and it will catch up, I wanted to get .39 into Tumbleweed due to it fixing a number of bugs that people were reporting.

thanks,

greg k-h

This would be one example item of many of what I mean when I say things like "TW is not advisable, has no plan, is a great idea but not well implemented etc..."

Since how does this show that Tumbleweed has no plan or is not will implemented?

...
The fact that a bug is definitely in a current kernel, and supposedly fixed in a newer kernel, or even if it's definitely fixed in the newer kernel, does NOT make that kernel a suitable kernel for a repo that you tell people is "stable".

Why do you feel not?

...
How well tested is this kernel before you put it into TW?

It was tested for 3 months.

...
It supposedly fixes this bug, but breaks what else?

It breaks nothing else. :)

...
It should have been in Factory or kotd or some repo that is used by some people for some amount of time before it goes into TW, or else you should take out the word stable from all TW documentation and references.

I'm sorry you feel this way. It sounds like Tumbleweed is something that you might not want to run, and that's fine, no one is forcing you to do so.

But to say that there is no testing, plans, or stability is unfair and false.

thanks,

greg k-h

A bunch of us over at openSUSE Forums are using it, some in a work environment. We find it quite stable so far, certainly stable within the expectations we have for a process that's not yet very old. We advise taking some elementary precautions and consequently we generally don't have any complaints. We watch the Tumbleweed Forum and more importantly we watch the Factory Mailing List and consequently stay well informed by those two media. I'm very pleased with the Tumbleweed distro so far. Keep up the good work. John A -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Roman Bysh

24 May 24 May

13:50

On 05/23/2011 07:25 PM, John Andrews (swerdna) wrote:

...

On 05/24/2011 08:15 AM, Greg KH wrote:

...
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 05:42:31PM -0400, Brian K. White wrote:

...
On 5/22/2011 10:34 AM, Greg KH wrote:

...
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...
Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ?

Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ?

It should, and it will catch up, I wanted to get .39 into Tumbleweed due to it fixing a number of bugs that people were reporting.

thanks,

greg k-h

This would be one example item of many of what I mean when I say things like "TW is not advisable, has no plan, is a great idea but not well implemented etc..."

Since how does this show that Tumbleweed has no plan or is not will implemented?

...
The fact that a bug is definitely in a current kernel, and supposedly fixed in a newer kernel, or even if it's definitely fixed in the newer kernel, does NOT make that kernel a suitable kernel for a repo that you tell people is "stable".

Why do you feel not?

...
How well tested is this kernel before you put it into TW?

It was tested for 3 months.

...
It supposedly fixes this bug, but breaks what else?

It breaks nothing else. :)

...
It should have been in Factory or kotd or some repo that is used by some people for some amount of time before it goes into TW, or else you should take out the word stable from all TW documentation and references.

I'm sorry you feel this way. It sounds like Tumbleweed is something that you might not want to run, and that's fine, no one is forcing you to do so.

But to say that there is no testing, plans, or stability is unfair and false.

thanks,

greg k-h

A bunch of us over at openSUSE Forums are using it, some in a work environment. We find it quite stable so far, certainly stable within the expectations we have for a process that's not yet very old. We advise taking some elementary precautions and consequently we generally don't have any complaints. We watch the Tumbleweed Forum and more importantly we watch the Factory Mailing List and consequently stay well informed by those two media. I'm very pleased with the Tumbleweed distro so far. Keep up the good work.

John A Same hear. I agree with John. I find the kernel very stable.

Very pleased. Great work! -- Cheers! Roman -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Greg KH

14:50

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 09:50:43AM -0400, Roman Bysh wrote:

...

On 05/23/2011 07:25 PM, John Andrews (swerdna) wrote:

...
A bunch of us over at openSUSE Forums are using it, some in a work environment. We find it quite stable so far, certainly stable within the expectations we have for a process that's not yet very old. We advise taking some elementary precautions and consequently we generally don't have any complaints. We watch the Tumbleweed Forum and more importantly we watch the Factory Mailing List and consequently stay well informed by those two media. I'm very pleased with the Tumbleweed distro so far. Keep up the good work.

John A Same hear. I agree with John. I find the kernel very stable.

Very pleased.

Great work!

Thanks for letting us know, I appreciate it. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Freigeist

15:22

...

On 05/24/2011 08:15 AM, Greg KH wrote:

...
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 05:42:31PM -0400, Brian K. White wrote:

...
On 5/22/2011 10:34 AM, Greg KH wrote:

...
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:37:31AM +0200, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

...
Why in Tumbleweed we have 2.6.39x and in Factory we have 2.6.38x ?

Shouldn't factory have the same or a bit in advance ?

It should, and it will catch up, I wanted to get .39 into Tumbleweed due to it fixing a number of bugs that people were reporting.

thanks,

greg k-h

This would be one example item of many of what I mean when I say things like "TW is not advisable, has no plan, is a great idea but not well implemented etc..."

Since how does this show that Tumbleweed has no plan or is not will implemented?

...
The fact that a bug is definitely in a current kernel, and supposedly fixed in a newer kernel, or even if it's definitely fixed in the newer kernel, does NOT make that kernel a suitable kernel for a repo that you tell people is "stable".

Why do you feel not?

...
How well tested is this kernel before you put it into TW?

It was tested for 3 months.

...
It supposedly fixes this bug, but breaks what else?

It breaks nothing else. :)

...
It should have been in Factory or kotd or some repo that is used by some people for some amount of time before it goes into TW, or else you should take out the word stable from all TW documentation and references.

I'm sorry you feel this way. It sounds like Tumbleweed is something that you might not want to run, and that's fine, no one is forcing you to do so.

But to say that there is no testing, plans, or stability is unfair and false.

thanks,

greg k-h

A bunch of us over at openSUSE Forums are using it, some in a work environment. We find it quite stable so far, certainly stable within the expectations we have for a process that's not yet very old. We advise taking some elementary precautions and consequently we generally don't have any complaints. We watch the Tumbleweed Forum and more importantly we watch the Factory Mailing List and consequently stay well informed by those two media. I'm very pleased with the Tumbleweed distro so far. Keep up the good work.

John A I second that. Tumbleweed is a great idea. I like the way how it is changing and improving and I am looking forward to see how it will look

Am 24.05.2011 01:25, schrieb John Andrews (swerdna): like in one or two years. There is nothing more to say except for: keep up the good work. Andreas -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Stefan Seyfried

25 May 25 May

08:01

Am Mon, 23 May 2011 17:42:31 -0400 schrieb "Brian K. White" :

...

How well tested is this kernel before you put it into TW? It supposedly fixes this bug, but breaks what else? It should have been in Factory or kotd or some repo that is used by some people for some amount of time

It was in KOTD, I reported bugs against it, they got fixed. -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Stefan Seyfried

08:04

Am Wed, 25 May 2011 10:01:12 +0200 schrieb Stefan Seyfried :

...

Am Mon, 23 May 2011 17:42:31 -0400 schrieb "Brian K. White" :

...
How well tested is this kernel before you put it into TW? It supposedly fixes this bug, but breaks what else? It should have been in Factory or kotd or some repo that is used by some people for some amount of time

It was in KOTD, I reported bugs against it, they got fixed.

Oh - I forgot: Additionally, 2.6.39 fixes that small XFS regression in 2.6.38.x which did not let disks spin down anymore :-) Brian, maybe SLES is more suitable for your needs than Tumbleweed. -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Brian K. White

16:49

On 5/25/2011 4:04 AM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...

Am Wed, 25 May 2011 10:01:12 +0200 schrieb Stefan Seyfried:

...
Am Mon, 23 May 2011 17:42:31 -0400 schrieb "Brian K. White":

...
How well tested is this kernel before you put it into TW? It supposedly fixes this bug, but breaks what else? It should have been in Factory or kotd or some repo that is used by some people for some amount of time

It was in KOTD, I reported bugs against it, they got fixed.

Oh - I forgot: Additionally, 2.6.39 fixes that small XFS regression in 2.6.38.x which did not let disks spin down anymore :-)

Brian, maybe SLES is more suitable for your needs than Tumbleweed.

Actually I've been thinking more along the lines of arch. My problem with TW is that it is essentially a new distribution, but without the very non-trivial amount of thought and engineering that goes into a sensibly maintainable distribution. I think it's been ok for some people so far mostly by luck. Few users, few use cases/patterns, little time passed since TW started, so little difference yet in all the packages and the overall OS and integration between packages, between TW and the 11.3-11.4 it started from. But, the kernel package suitability question was answered , ah, suitably (sorry, had to), so, while just from looking at it and how it's been put together so far I still wouldn't touch it myself, I'm willing to be quiet for now and see what happens over time and be proven wrong. My point really wasn't to insult anyone, just to say what I see. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Greg KH

26 May 26 May

06:55

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:49:58PM -0400, Brian K. White wrote:

...

On 5/25/2011 4:04 AM, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...
Am Wed, 25 May 2011 10:01:12 +0200 schrieb Stefan Seyfried:

...
Am Mon, 23 May 2011 17:42:31 -0400 schrieb "Brian K. White":

...
How well tested is this kernel before you put it into TW? It supposedly fixes this bug, but breaks what else? It should have been in Factory or kotd or some repo that is used by some people for some amount of time

It was in KOTD, I reported bugs against it, they got fixed.

Oh - I forgot: Additionally, 2.6.39 fixes that small XFS regression in 2.6.38.x which did not let disks spin down anymore :-)

Brian, maybe SLES is more suitable for your needs than Tumbleweed.

Actually I've been thinking more along the lines of arch.

Really? Ok, have fun, but it really seems like your objections to Tumbleweed are going to be identical to the way arch works at the moment. Best of luck, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

4717

Age (days ago)

4721

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

16 comments

9 participants

participants (9)

Brian K. White
Bruno Friedmann
Freigeist
Greg KH
Jeff Mahoney
John Andrews (swerdna)
Roman Bysh
Stefan Seyfried
Stephan Kulow