Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation/process/howto: Update for 4.x -> 5.x versioning
From: Zenghui Yu
Date: Tue Feb 26 2019 - 12:09:02 EST
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 2:26 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 23:45:23 +0800
> Zenghui Yu <zenghuiyu96@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > As linux-5.0 is coming up soon, the howto.rst document can be
> > updated for the new kernel version. Change all 4.x references
> > to 5.x now.
> > Signed-off-by: Zenghui Yu <zenghuiyu96@xxxxxxxxx>
> Overall: I think there's value in having the docs reflect current
> numbers, though it would be better if the docs as a whole were kept
> current at the same time. howto.rst hasn't been updated yet, so this
> attention is welcome - thanks for taking a look at it. That said, I
> really think we can do a little better.
Thanks for your reviewing and nice suggestions. Now I have realized that
simply changing version numbers in howto.rst (like what I've done ...) is
shortsighted. And yeah, we can do it better.
> > Documentation/process/howto.rst | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/howto.rst b/Documentation/process/howto.rst
> > index f16242b..19001e2 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/howto.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/howto.rst
> > @@ -235,16 +235,16 @@ Linux kernel development process currently consists of a few different
> > main kernel "branches" and lots of different subsystem-specific kernel
> > branches. These different branches are:
> > - - main 4.x kernel tree
> > - - 4.x.y -stable kernel tree
> > + - main 5.x kernel tree
> > + - 5.x.y -stable kernel tree
> > - subsystem specific kernel trees and patches
> > - - the 4.x -next kernel tree for integration tests
> > + - the 5.x -next kernel tree for integration tests
> One thing I think we can do is to simply get rid of version numbers in a
> lot of places and make this process easier when 6.x comes around. What
> this is really trying to say is that we have:
> - Linus's mainline tree
> - Various stable trees with multiple major numbers
> - Subsystem-specific trees
> - linux-next
> If we could rework this along those lines, it will more accurately
> reflect reality and not require updating next time.
Obviously a better classification. Will follow your suggestion and modify it.
> > -4.x kernel tree
> > +5.x kernel tree
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > -4.x kernels are maintained by Linus Torvalds, and can be found on
> > -https://kernel.org in the pub/linux/kernel/v4.x/ directory. Its development
> > +5.x kernels are maintained by Linus Torvalds, and can be found on
> > +https://kernel.org in the pub/linux/kernel/v5.x/ directory. Its development
> > process is as follows:
> And here too I think we can just say "mainline" and that they can be
> found at https://kernel.org/ or in the repo.
> > - As soon as a new kernel is released a two weeks window is open,
> > @@ -277,21 +277,21 @@ mailing list about kernel releases:
> > released according to perceived bug status, not according to a
> > preconceived timeline."*
> > -4.x.y -stable kernel tree
> > +5.x.y -stable kernel tree
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Kernels with 3-part versions are -stable kernels. They contain
> > relatively small and critical fixes for security problems or significant
> > -regressions discovered in a given 4.x kernel.
> > +regressions discovered in a given 5.x kernel.
> Here too, especially since most of the outstanding stable kernels won't
> be 5.x for a long time.
Yes. Actually, I hesitated too when I was changing "4.x.y -stable kernel tree"
to "5.x.y -stable kernel tree" :)
Using "stable trees" instead will be better.
> > This is the recommended branch for users who want the most recent stable
> > kernel and are not interested in helping test development/experimental
> > versions.
> > -If no 4.x.y kernel is available, then the highest numbered 4.x
> > +If no 5.x.y kernel is available, then the highest numbered 5.x
> > kernel is the current stable kernel.
> ...and this, I believe, is misleading at best. I'd just take that
> sentence out.
Yes, I'll delete it.
> > -4.x.y are maintained by the "stable" team <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, and
> > +5.x.y are maintained by the "stable" team <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, and
> > are released as needs dictate. The normal release period is approximately
> > two weeks, but it can be longer if there are no pressing problems. A
> > security-related problem, instead, can cause a release to happen almost
> > @@ -326,10 +326,10 @@ revisions to it, and maintainers can mark patches as under review,
> > accepted, or rejected. Most of these patchwork sites are listed at
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/.
> > -4.x -next kernel tree for integration tests
> > +5.x -next kernel tree for integration tests
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > -Before updates from subsystem trees are merged into the mainline 4.x
> > +Before updates from subsystem trees are merged into the mainline 5.x
> > tree, they need to be integration-tested. For this purpose, a special
> > testing repository exists into which virtually all subsystem trees are
> > pulled on an almost daily basis:
> linux-next is called "linux-next"; we should just use that name.
> So what do you think? Can we maybe get a version that removes most (or
> all) of the explicit version numbers from this file?
Actually, jon, you have already kindly pointed out everywhere to be noticed in
this patch. What I need to do is just follow your detailed suggestions and send
a V3 :) And I think all of the explicit version numbers can be removed.