======================= #fedora-meeting: kernel =======================
Meeting started by jforbes at 18:01:11 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-09-06/fedora-meeting.20... .
Meeting summary --------------- * who's here? (jforbes, 18:01:30)
* F18/F19 (jforbes, 18:02:14) * F19 will get 3.10.11 before a rebase to 3.11 kernels (jforbes, 18:06:30) * F18 will get a 3.11 rebase shortly after F19 (a week or so) (jforbes, 18:07:12)
* F20 (jforbes, 18:08:36)
* rawhide (jforbes, 18:11:25)
* coverity/trinity/upstream (jforbes, 18:16:00)
* Testing (jforbes, 18:21:39)
* open floor (jforbes, 18:27:26) * F20 should remain on 3.11.x until release (jforbes, 18:28:40) * September 20 meeting cancelled as 2/3 of the kernel team will be at LPC (jforbes, 18:29:45)
Meeting ended at 18:30:45 UTC.
Action Items ------------
Action Items, by person ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none)
People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * jforbes (36) * jwb (28) * davej (20) * brunowolff (3) * nirik (2) * zodbot (2)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
Lo!
On 06.09.2013 20:35, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
- open floor (jforbes, 18:27:26)
- F20 should remain on 3.11.x until release (jforbes, 18:28:40)
Just wondering: Is that really wise? The devel cycles for 3.4, 3.5, 3.10 and 3.11 took 9 weeks; 3.6 up to 3.9 all took round about ten weeks. Which makes it pretty likely that 3.12 gets released round about on 4. or the 11. of November. Yes, that's pretty close to the release of F20 (Final Change Deadline is 2013-11-12 currently). But isn't including and testing 3.12-rc soon in F20-pre better than shipping it as update for F19 and F20 just a week or two after F20 got released? The latter seems likely and then the 3.12 package then gets only tested in updates-testing.
Cu knurd
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
Lo!
On 06.09.2013 20:35, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
- open floor (jforbes, 18:27:26)
- F20 should remain on 3.11.x until release (jforbes, 18:28:40)
Just wondering: Is that really wise? The devel cycles for 3.4, 3.5, 3.10 and 3.11 took 9 weeks; 3.6 up to 3.9 all took round about ten weeks. Which makes it pretty likely that 3.12 gets released round about on 4. or the 11. of November. Yes, that's pretty close to the release of F20
phb-crystal-ball.org agrees with you, they say the 8th.
(Final Change Deadline is 2013-11-12 currently). But isn't including and testing 3.12-rc soon in F20-pre better than shipping it as update for F19 and F20 just a week or two after F20 got released? The latter seems likely and then the 3.12 package then gets only tested in updates-testing.
We're really in a tough spot all around with this release. Alpha change deadline is passed and there's no way I'm going to do Alpha on a merge window kernel anyway. That means if we switch to a 3.12-rcX in F20 after Alpha, it negates any and all testing they've done with Alpha. Beta would ship with a mid-rcX release, which we've done before. However, it's conference season and there's no guarantee 3.12 final ships in time.
It's really a tough call. There's not really a perfect answer here. As usual, we hope and encourage people are testing rawhide.
josh
Hi!
Tanks for answering.
On 08.09.2013 14:16, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 06.09.2013 20:35, Justin M. Forbes wrote: (Final Change Deadline is 2013-11-12 currently). But isn't including and testing 3.12-rc soon in F20-pre better than shipping it as update for F19 and F20 just a week or two after F20 got released? The latter seems likely and then the 3.12 package then gets only tested in updates-testing.
We're really in a tough spot all around with this release.
We were in a similar situation in F19 iirc: shipped with 3.9 and 3.10 came out as a update just a few days after the release. Ohh, and F18 even had a zero-day update from 3.6 to 3.7.
Alpha change deadline is passed and there's no way I'm going to do Alpha on a merge window kernel anyway.
Sure.
That means if we switch to a 3.12-rcX in F20 after Alpha, it negates any and all testing they've done with Alpha.
And if we ship a major update just days after the release of f20 then we negate a lot of testing, too -- but yes, the kernel used on the ISOs will be more robust.
Beta would ship with a mid-rcX release, which we've done before. However, it's conference season and there's no guarantee 3.12 final ships in time.
Sure -- but the risk is not that big afaics (recently conferences doesn't seems to hurt much anymore) and we have shipped Fedora releases with RC[higher than 5] releases, too.
It's really a tough call.
Yeah, understood, but I thought it might be worth the discussion, hence my mails.
[...]
CU knurd
On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 16:44:03 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis fedora@leemhuis.info wrote:
And if we ship a major update just days after the release of f20 then we negate a lot of testing, too -- but yes, the kernel used on the ISOs will be more robust.
The difference is that 0 day updates can be easily fixed, the release media can't.
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 16:44 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
And if we ship a major update just days after the release of f20 then we negate a lot of testing, too -- but yes, the kernel used on the ISOs will be more robust.
This is important because the ISOs don't get updates. We need to insure that people can install. This is why a zero day update makes much more sense than rebasing the release kernel just before release.
On 09.09.2013 16:54, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
On Mon, 2013-09-09 at 16:44 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
And if we ship a major update just days after the release of f20 then we negate a lot of testing, too -- but yes, the kernel used on the ISOs will be more robust.
This is important because the ISOs don't get updates.
Ohh really? Tell me about it ;-)
We need to insure that people can install.
Sure -- but we also don't want to look old on release and make people unhappy by breaking their systems wit the updates in the first days after the release.
This is why a zero day update makes much more sense than rebasing the release kernel just before release.
I wouldn't call two months "just before the release" in the modern world -- especially for a component like the kernel, as it has a really well established and running development process and someone at the top of the food chain that really yells at people when they try to sneak in big or ugly changes :-)
CU knurd
On 09.09.2013 17:19, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I wouldn't call two months "just before the release" in the modern world -- especially for a component like the kernel, as it has a really well established and running development process and someone at the top of the food chain that really yells at people when they try to sneak in big or ugly changes :-)
A chain of bratwurst sausages? http://media2.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2013/09/05/IQT_06-09-2013_NE...
poma
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org