Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation/process/howto: Update for 4.x -> 5.x versioning

[Zenghui Yu]

Hi Jon,

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.

Will modify.

> >    - 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.

Will modify.

> 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.


Many thanks,

zenghui