Jeff Mahoney
2014-07-31 14:32:06 UTC
Hi folks -
The openSUSE team recently announced[1] that openSUSE Factory is
moving to a rolling development model, similar to how Tumbleweed has
functioned for some time. I think this will do wonders for the
stability of Factory and hopefully make it interesting again for those
of us who used to sync nightly and zypper dup first thing every morning.
It does bring a few questions with it, though. How do we handle the
kernel with a rolling release? Having multiple outstanding versions
isn't an issue unique to the kernel, but few other projects are as
large and have as much churn between releases. The folks trying to
support the kernel as best we can are short on time as it is, so I'm
concerned about establishing parameters for which bug reports will be
considered valid[2]. I'd like to define what those are so that anyone
going through bug reports (even someone not actively involved in
kernel development or maintenance) and see which ones can be closed
or, at least, put on hold until they've been reproduced with the
latest version.
1) How do we handle releases of the Factory kernel?
2) What releases will be considered "supported" simultaneously?
For 1), I propose we make it official that Kernel:stable is now the
external repository for openSUSE Factory. Even though Factory has
already been pulling from Kernel:stable, making it an official thing
means that security fixes and other backports are actively added to it
rather than it being Jiri's side project. Factory would only contain
point releases moving forward and release candidates would be confined
to Kernel:HEAD. As a result of the change, I'd start adding -rc1
updates to Kernel:HEAD rather than waiting until -rc2 as I have in the
past. It also means that there would no longer be a delay for things
like Xen and ARM in Factory.
As for 2), I'd like to hear suggestions. With only so much time to
devote to supporting the Factory kernel, we'll need to find a balance
between convenience for users and bugs actually getting fixed. We have
options between supporting every release (which I would actively
fight) and dropping support for any previous kernel as soon as a new
one is added to the repository. I've added some interested parties to
the CC list, but I'd like to hear from anyone with an opinion.
Related to 2, I'd like to put more effort into trimming down the
number of patches we carry in the openSUSE kernel. Over the years,
we've done a pretty good job of that (compare the number of patches in
a SLES release vs openSUSE), but we can do more. SUSE has already
hired several engineers to work on getting our divergent Xen
implementation into something that is mergeable upstream. Once that
happens, the openSUSE kernel patchset should only contain
security/stability backports.
- -Jeff
[1]
https://news.opensuse.org/2014/07/29/factory-rolling-release/#more-18251
[2] I'll be the first to admit we're open to criticism in how fast
openSUSE bugs are handled already
- --
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
The openSUSE team recently announced[1] that openSUSE Factory is
moving to a rolling development model, similar to how Tumbleweed has
functioned for some time. I think this will do wonders for the
stability of Factory and hopefully make it interesting again for those
of us who used to sync nightly and zypper dup first thing every morning.
It does bring a few questions with it, though. How do we handle the
kernel with a rolling release? Having multiple outstanding versions
isn't an issue unique to the kernel, but few other projects are as
large and have as much churn between releases. The folks trying to
support the kernel as best we can are short on time as it is, so I'm
concerned about establishing parameters for which bug reports will be
considered valid[2]. I'd like to define what those are so that anyone
going through bug reports (even someone not actively involved in
kernel development or maintenance) and see which ones can be closed
or, at least, put on hold until they've been reproduced with the
latest version.
1) How do we handle releases of the Factory kernel?
2) What releases will be considered "supported" simultaneously?
For 1), I propose we make it official that Kernel:stable is now the
external repository for openSUSE Factory. Even though Factory has
already been pulling from Kernel:stable, making it an official thing
means that security fixes and other backports are actively added to it
rather than it being Jiri's side project. Factory would only contain
point releases moving forward and release candidates would be confined
to Kernel:HEAD. As a result of the change, I'd start adding -rc1
updates to Kernel:HEAD rather than waiting until -rc2 as I have in the
past. It also means that there would no longer be a delay for things
like Xen and ARM in Factory.
As for 2), I'd like to hear suggestions. With only so much time to
devote to supporting the Factory kernel, we'll need to find a balance
between convenience for users and bugs actually getting fixed. We have
options between supporting every release (which I would actively
fight) and dropping support for any previous kernel as soon as a new
one is added to the repository. I've added some interested parties to
the CC list, but I'd like to hear from anyone with an opinion.
Related to 2, I'd like to put more effort into trimming down the
number of patches we carry in the openSUSE kernel. Over the years,
we've done a pretty good job of that (compare the number of patches in
a SLES release vs openSUSE), but we can do more. SUSE has already
hired several engineers to work on getting our divergent Xen
implementation into something that is mergeable upstream. Once that
happens, the openSUSE kernel patchset should only contain
security/stability backports.
- -Jeff
[1]
https://news.opensuse.org/2014/07/29/factory-rolling-release/#more-18251
[2] I'll be the first to admit we're open to criticism in how fast
openSUSE bugs are handled already
- --
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs