Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

Thoughts on Ubuntu maintaining Jessie's kernel ~ discuss

User discussion about Debian Development, Debian Project News and Announcements. Not for support questions.
Message
Author
User avatar
hakerdefo
Posts: 258
Joined: 2014-05-05 05:31

Re: Thoughts on Ubuntu maintaining Jessie's kernel ~ discuss

#46 Post by hakerdefo »

Randicus wrote:...Although it does add a little weight to the argument, albeit more from extrapolation than proof. :)
Yeah you are right! It doesn't provide the proof but proofs and evidences are hard to come-up with when we are discussing about actions and intentions. why did Debian leadership take the decision (action) to turn to Canonical to help maintain the kernel and why did Canonical agreed to provide the help (intention)?
Only the Debian leadership and Canonical have the answers. The rest of us only can extrapolate :wink:
Cheers!!!

User avatar
hakerdefo
Posts: 258
Joined: 2014-05-05 05:31

Re: Thoughts on Ubuntu maintaining Jessie's kernel ~ discuss

#47 Post by hakerdefo »

Linadian wrote:I'm kinda sorry I started this thread now. On the other hand, better to hash things out than keep 'em bottled up (see Postal Worker Syndrome, lol :lol: ).
You shouldn't be sorry! It's a good thing you did!
Postal Worker Syndrome is dangerous :wink:
Cheers!!!

confuseling
Posts: 2121
Joined: 2009-10-21 01:03

Re: Thoughts on Ubuntu maintaining Jessie's kernel ~ discuss

#48 Post by confuseling »

hakerdefo wrote:
Randicus wrote:...Although it does add a little weight to the argument, albeit more from extrapolation than proof. :)
Yeah you are right! It doesn't provide the proof but proofs and evidences are hard to come-up with when we are discussing about actions and intentions. why did Debian leadership take the decision (action) to turn to Canonical to help maintain the kernel and why did Canonical agreed to provide the help (intention)?
Only the Debian leadership and Canonical have the answers. The rest of us only can extrapolate :wink:
Cheers!!!
Have you actually checked the mailing lists? I doubt this was done privately, and Debian doesn't need Ubuntu's permission to use their patches to GPL software.

I think the scenario is something like:

DD1: Well, the LTS kernel comes out a month after the freeze, so that's no good. And the one RHEL are using will be three months behind, missing drivers for hardware X and Y. I suppose we'll have to maintain our own.
DD2: Ubuntu support will overlap for a year, we could use theirs.
DD1: Good idea.

Not quite as exciting as all these insinuations about scheming in smoke filled rooms, but hey.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
The Forum's search box is terrible. Use site specific search, e.g.
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... terms+here

User avatar
hakerdefo
Posts: 258
Joined: 2014-05-05 05:31

Re: Thoughts on Ubuntu maintaining Jessie's kernel ~ discuss

#49 Post by hakerdefo »

Okay here is the story (real) behind Ubuntu maintaining Jessie kernel,
Ben Hutchings who is maintaining 3.2 kernel felt that he won't have time to maintain another longterm stable branch. He proposed to Greg Kroah-Hartman that his next longterm kernel branch be based on 3.16 but due to earlier freeze dates of consumer electronics companies Greg K-H selected 3.14 as the longterm stable branch. By this point Ubuntu has selected 3.16 kernel for their 14.10 release. Ubuntu 14.10 will be released in October 2014 and Ubuntu kernel team will be supporting the 3.16 kernel for about 15-18 months after 14.10 release and by that time the 3.2 kernel will reach EOL and from then on Ben Hutchins will be free to take over maintainership of 3.16 kernel.
Moral of this story? Something is wrong with Debian's development model. Why is there no one beside Ben Hutchings to take over the maintainership or to help him? Maximilian Attems summed it up when he said,
The “New Maintainer process” is a strange way to discourage people to contribute to Debian. It is particularly bureaucratic and a huge waste of time both for the applicant and his manager. It should be completely thrown overboard.
One needs a more scalable approach for trust and credibility that also enhances the technical knowledge for coding and packaging of the applicant.
NM is currently set in stone as any outside critics is automatically rejected. Young and energetic people are crucial for Debian and the long-term viability of the project, this is the reason why I’d consider the “New Maintainer process” as Debian’s biggest problem.
Cheers!!!

User avatar
buntunub
Posts: 591
Joined: 2011-02-11 05:23

Re: Thoughts on Ubuntu maintaining Jessie's kernel ~ discuss

#50 Post by buntunub »

hakerdefo wrote:Okay here is the story (real) behind Ubuntu maintaining Jessie kernel,
Ben Hutchings who is maintaining 3.2 kernel felt that he won't have time to maintain another longterm stable branch. He proposed to Greg Kroah-Hartman that his next longterm kernel branch be based on 3.16 but due to earlier freeze dates of consumer electronics companies Greg K-H selected 3.14 as the longterm stable branch. By this point Ubuntu has selected 3.16 kernel for their 14.10 release. Ubuntu 14.10 will be released in October 2014 and Ubuntu kernel team will be supporting the 3.16 kernel for about 15-18 months after 14.10 release and by that time the 3.2 kernel will reach EOL and from then on Ben Hutchins will be free to take over maintainership of 3.16 kernel.
Moral of this story? Something is wrong with Debian's development model. Why is there no one beside Ben Hutchings to take over the maintainership or to help him? Maximilian Attems summed it up when he said,
The “New Maintainer process” is a strange way to discourage people to contribute to Debian. It is particularly bureaucratic and a huge waste of time both for the applicant and his manager. It should be completely thrown overboard.
One needs a more scalable approach for trust and credibility that also enhances the technical knowledge for coding and packaging of the applicant.
NM is currently set in stone as any outside critics is automatically rejected. Young and energetic people are crucial for Debian and the long-term viability of the project, this is the reason why I’d consider the “New Maintainer process” as Debian’s biggest problem.
Cheers!!!
So you are suggesting that a new MP be discussed and hashed out? That's probably a wise idea if Debian is to survive and thrive long term, but a new thread should be started about that so that it can be hashed out properly.

Post Reply