Rawhide nodebug and the 3.12 kernel

Josh Boyer jwboyer at fedoraproject.org
Wed Nov 6 21:27:23 UTC 2013

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:37 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:00 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
>> >> We have a slight issue with the 3.12 kernel timing in that it is too
>> >> late to push it into Fedora 20, but too far away from the Fedora 20
>> >> release to just ignore the 3.13 development cycle until we can push
>> >> 3.12. As a result, we will be tracking 3.12 and stable updates for it in
>> >> the rawhide-nodebug repository. This gives us a chance to keep it built
>> >> and tested on all primary architectures, and make sure we are in good
>> >> shape to push 3.12 out as an update as soon as possible. Once 3.12 can
>> >> be pushed to releases, the rawhide-nodebug repository will return to
>> >> doing non debug builds of rawhide, tracking Linus' tree upstream. I will
>> >> let everyone know that is happening through the same channels with a
>> >> couple of days notice.
>> >>
>> >> More information on the rawhide-nodebug repository can be found at:
>> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RawhideKernelNodebug
>> >
>> > FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be
>> > much of a problem to have 3.12 in F20 at release time. It's what I've
>> > been running on my F20 box here for the last several weeks anyway, and
>> > based on my testing it's unlikely to cause us any particular problems.
>> I literally just screamed.
>> The past 3 releases we've been pointedly reminded by QA that when
>> doing fixes they should be scoped to as small as possible.  So we've
>> been trying really hard to do that during the Alpha and the Beta
>> freezes.  And now you want to ship a Beta (which gets the widest
>> testing feedback of the pre-releases) with 3.11, and shove 3.12 in
>> after that as the F20 release kernel?
>> It could be the massive amount of email and meetings today addling my
>> brain, but can you explain how that makes sense?
> Sorry, on re-reading that it could've been clearer =)
> By 'the ship has probably sailed now' I meant 'beta's almost done'. I
> was trying to say we could probably have safely got it in before Beta
> (though, admittedly, we didn't know we were going to slip two weeks...)
> I wasn't really suggesting any change, just noting that 3.12's actually
> fine for F20 atm if anyone feels like using it.

I wasn't released upstream until this past Sunday.  We could have gone
with a late RC, but didn't think it was prudent.

> The other funny thing is that the kernel is actually a relatively
> reliable component, even though it's so vital, because a) it's usually
> pretty damn obvious if anything terrible is wrong and b) it's

Well, depending on the machine.  That's the coverage part I'm worried
about.  Stuff like backlights, etc.

> extensively and competently tested upstream. I'd actually be _less_
> concerned about changing the kernel post-beta than changing, say, I
> dunno, NetworkManager (not to pick on NM, just an example, many things
> are in the same boat). Still, I'm entirely fine with sticking with 3.11
> and happy the kernel team is considering stability/quality in making
> that choice.

OK, great.  Much less confused, thanks.


More information about the devel mailing list