From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0DFDCED for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 22:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-f170.google.com (mail-qt0-f170.google.com [209.85.216.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3205D70D for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 22:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f170.google.com with SMTP id t5-v6so5886017qtn.3 for ; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:03:09 -0700 (PDT) To: Guenter Roeck , Sasha Levin References: <5c9c41b2-14f9-41cc-ae85-be9721f37c86@redhat.com> <20180904213340.GD16300@sasha-vm> <7e4a1cb8-9f3c-e1ea-e9bd-5f1f3588ce65@roeck-us.net> From: Laura Abbott Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 15:03:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <7e4a1cb8-9f3c-e1ea-e9bd-5f1f3588ce65@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Greg KH , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Stable trees and release time List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 09/04/2018 02:55 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 09/04/2018 02:33 PM, Sasha Levin via Ksummit-discuss wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 01:58:42PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: >>> I'd like to start a discussion about the stable release cycle. >>> >>> Fedora is a heavy user of the most recent stable trees and we >>> generally do a pretty good job of keeping up to date. As we >>> try and increase testing though, the stable release process >>> gets to be a bit difficult. We often run into the problem where >>> release .Z is officially released and then .Z+1 comes >>> out as an -rc immediately after. Given Fedora release processes, >>> we haven't always finished testing .Z by the time .Z+1 comes >>> out. What to do in this situation really depends on what's in >>> .Z and .Z+1 and how stable we think things are. This usually >>> works out fine but a) sometimes we guess wrong and should have >>> tested .Z more b) we're only looking to increase testing. >>> >>> What I'd like to see is stable updates that come on a regular >>> schedule with a longer -rc interval, say Sunday with >>> a one week -rc period. I understand that much of the current >>> stable schedule is based on Greg's schedule. As a distro >>> maintainer though, a regular release schedule with a longer >>> testing window makes it much easier to plan and deliver something >>> useful to our users. It's also a much easier sell for encouraging >>> everyone to pick up every stable update if there's a known >>> schedule. I also realize Greg is probably reading this with a very >>> skeptical look on his face so I'd be interested to hear from >>> other distro maintainers as well. >> >> OTOH, what I like with the current process is that I don't have to align >> any of the various (internal) release schedules we have with some >> standard stable kernel release schedule. I just pick the latest stable >> kernel (.Z) and we go through our build/testing pipeline on it. If >> another stable kernel (.Z+1) is released a day later it will just wait >> until the next release based on our schedule. >> >> Why not set your own release schedule and just take the latest stable >> kernel at that point? So what if the .Z+1 kernel is out a day later? You >> could just queue it up for your next release. >> >> This is exactly what would happen if you ask Greg to go on some sort of >> a schedule - he'll just defer the .Z+1 commits to what would have been >> the .Z+2 release, so you don't really win anything by moving to a >> stricter schedule. >> > > Good point. There would actually be a downside of having a longer > release cycle: Fewer releases means more patches per release. > More patches per release results in more regressions per release > (if we assume a constant percentage of regressions, which seems > reasonable). > Yes but with a longer -rc cycle we could have more time to actually find those bugs before they get released and we could get more focused testing. > Guenter Thanks, Laura