Hi All,
Really no different from any of the last major version rebases we've done. We'll likely rebase F23 to the 4.3.y kernel around the time 4.3.1 or 4.3.2 is released upstream. Until then, the stabilization branch is tracking what should eventually be merged into F23.
F22 will follow sometime thereafter. F21 will not be rebased to 4.2 or 4.3 and will go EOL with 4.1.13. Please migrate off of F21 as soon as possible.
If you have questions, please let us know.
josh
On 11/20/2015 04:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Hi All,
Really no different from any of the last major version rebases we've done. We'll likely rebase F23 to the 4.3.y kernel around the time 4.3.1 or 4.3.2 is released upstream. Until then, the stabilization branch is tracking what should eventually be merged into F23.
F22 will follow sometime thereafter. F21 will not be rebased to 4.2 or 4.3 and will go EOL with 4.1.13. Please migrate off of F21 as soon as possible.
If you have questions, please let us know.
4.3.3 has now been release but no sign of it in F23.
4.3 contains among otherthings fixes for annoying dual monitor problems ( bug 103771 on bz.krn ) and the 4.4 rc's kernels where deadlocking in some situation last time I heard from users here in the office trying to use the nodebug kernel and staying somewhat current in apparently futile attempt trying to workaround that dual monitor bug.
JBG
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:33:48PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/20/2015 04:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Hi All,
Really no different from any of the last major version rebases we've done. We'll likely rebase F23 to the 4.3.y kernel around the time 4.3.1 or 4.3.2 is released upstream. Until then, the stabilization branch is tracking what should eventually be merged into F23.
F22 will follow sometime thereafter. F21 will not be rebased to 4.2 or 4.3 and will go EOL with 4.1.13. Please migrate off of F21 as soon as possible.
If you have questions, please let us know.
4.3.3 has now been release but no sign of it in F23.
It won't be submitted until January. We don't want to do a major rebase the week before most of us go away on PTO. There is a COPR that contains builds from the stabilization branch in Fedora git for those that wish to jump early.
josh
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:48:45AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
It won't be submitted until January. We don't want to do a major rebase the week before most of us go away on PTO. There is a COPR that contains builds from the stabilization branch in Fedora git for those that wish to jump early.
Josh, that's https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jforbes/kernel-stabilization/, right? I've seen requests coming in from several directions for the Rawhide kernel on F23 and I've been pointing them at the wiki page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RawhideKernelNodebug, but this is probably better for that case (right?).
Do you think it's a bad idea to add a reference to that COPR to that wiki page? If you don't think so, I will.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 09:48:45AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
It won't be submitted until January. We don't want to do a major rebase the week before most of us go away on PTO. There is a COPR that contains builds from the stabilization branch in Fedora git for those that wish to jump early.
Josh, that's https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jforbes/kernel-stabilization/, right?
Yes.
I've seen requests coming in from several directions for the Rawhide kernel on F23 and I've been pointing them at the wiki page at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RawhideKernelNodebug, but this is probably better for that case (right?).
Depends. Where are you seeing the requests and what for? I'm asking because I have seen a few, but the demand hasn't been what I would consider large.
Do you think it's a bad idea to add a reference to that COPR to that wiki page? If you don't think so, I will.
I'd rather not. This COPR isn't something we're going to maintain long term, and if it gets added to the wiki we'll forget to take it off and then people will be confused.
josh
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:15:36AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Depends. Where are you seeing the requests and what for? I'm asking because I have seen a few, but the demand hasn't been what I would consider large.
Users' list and on Stack Exchange. It wasn't like a gigantic flood of hundreds, but "more than one around the same time" made me notice.
I'd rather not. This COPR isn't something we're going to maintain long term, and if it gets added to the wiki we'll forget to take it off and then people will be confused.
*nod*
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:15:36AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Depends. Where are you seeing the requests and what for? I'm asking because I have seen a few, but the demand hasn't been what I would consider large.
Users' list and on Stack Exchange. It wasn't like a gigantic flood of hundreds, but "more than one around the same time" made me notice.
If you have links, I'd be happy to read them. You can send them to me privately if you'd like.
I'd rather not. This COPR isn't something we're going to maintain long term, and if it gets added to the wiki we'll forget to take it off and then people will be confused.
*nod*
To further clarify, the timing for 4.3 is "off". The upstream stable maintainer did not release 4.3.1 for what amounts to a significant delay from his usual pace. My best guess is that he was on a well deserved vacation. Once 4.3.1 came out, 4.3.2 followed a day later because of a pretty important bugfix, and 4.3.3 came out last evening but it has a known memory leak bug that will likely get fixed quickly. We've been tracking 4.3 in the stabilization branch since before 4.3.1.
Because of the timing, we don't feel comfortable doing the rebase in F23 this week and then walking away for an extended period of time. Even if we left it in updates-testing, people will download it and use it and expect follow up. We're sticking with the devil we know in 4.2.y until after the new year for the stable Fedora releases. That is also the reason we aren't broadcasting the existence of the COPR very much. Most people simply want a newer kernel because it's new. The COPR is really just for cases where it's needed.
josh
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:31:03AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Users' list and on Stack Exchange. It wasn't like a gigantic flood of hundreds, but "more than one around the same time" made me notice.
If you have links, I'd be happy to read them. You can send them to me privately if you'd like.
Sure:
http://superuser.com/q/1012037/52715 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2015-December/467189.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2015-December/467126.html
Because of the timing, we don't feel comfortable doing the rebase in F23 this week and then walking away for an extended period of time. Even if we left it in updates-testing, people will download it and use it and expect follow up. We're sticking with the devil we know in 4.2.y until after the new year for the stable Fedora releases. That is also the reason we aren't broadcasting the existence of the COPR very much. Most people simply want a newer kernel because it's new. The COPR is really just for cases where it's needed.
Thanks; that makes sense.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:31:03AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Users' list and on Stack Exchange. It wasn't like a gigantic flood of hundreds, but "more than one around the same time" made me notice.
If you have links, I'd be happy to read them. You can send them to me privately if you'd like.
Sure:
Not 4.3 specific, seems to actually want 4.4-rcX. Though until your answer, that thing is a trainwreck.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2015-December/467189.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2015-December/467126.html
Both of these could probably be pointed to the COPR. I know Skylake users are itchy.
josh
On 12/15/2015 02:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:33:48PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/20/2015 04:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
4.3.3 has now been release but no sign of it in F23.
It won't be submitted until January. We don't want to do a major rebase the week before most of us go away on PTO. There is a COPR that contains builds from the stabilization branch in Fedora git for those that wish to jump early.
Did not know about that corp repo hence I have to ask...
Is that the latest stable kernel release ( 4.3.3 ) and will always contain the latest stable release ( for all current Fedora releases ) or is it an replacement for rawhide-nodebug and contains the latest development kernel release ( 4.4 ) which I was informed was deadlocking in some cases ( which may or may not be resolved in rc5 based on [1] ) and those that are using Fedora as workstation can avoid installing ( unless they are doing direct development on the kernel or testing )?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:20:06PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/15/2015 02:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:33:48PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/20/2015 04:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
4.3.3 has now been release but no sign of it in F23.
It won't be submitted until January. We don't want to do a major rebase the week before most of us go away on PTO. There is a COPR that contains builds from the stabilization branch in Fedora git for those that wish to jump early.
Did not know about that corp repo hence I have to ask...
Is that the latest stable kernel release ( 4.3.3 ) and will always
Not yet. It will be updated to 4.3.3 (or 4.3.4) at some point this week, but 4.3.3 has a known memory leak.
contain the latest stable release ( for all current Fedora releases
It won't always even exist. It's temporary.
) or is it an replacement for rawhide-nodebug and contains the
No, it is not a replacement for rawhide-nodebug. It has nothing to do with rawhide.
latest development kernel release ( 4.4 ) which I was informed was deadlocking in some cases ( which may or may not be resolved in rc5 based on [1] ) and those that are using Fedora as workstation can avoid installing ( unless they are doing direct development on the kernel or testing )?
The email I just sent to Matthew has more details on why it exists and why 4.3 is weird.
If people using Rawhide Workstation are hitting problems with the rawhide kernel, they should report the bugs. It is also a good idea to keep at least one known good working kernel installed on a rawhide machine, which is one of the main motivations for having 3 kernels installed at a time anyway. One could use this COPR to get a stable kernel I guess, but it would involve manual installation if they're already on 4.4-rcX because RPM would view the COPR builds as older.
josh
On 12/15/2015 03:35 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:20:06PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/15/2015 02:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:33:48PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/20/2015 04:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
4.3.3 has now been release but no sign of it in F23.
It won't be submitted until January. We don't want to do a major rebase the week before most of us go away on PTO. There is a COPR that contains builds from the stabilization branch in Fedora git for those that wish to jump early.
Did not know about that corp repo hence I have to ask...
Is that the latest stable kernel release ( 4.3.3 ) and will always
Not yet. It will be updated to 4.3.3 (or 4.3.4) at some point this week, but 4.3.3 has a known memory leak.
contain the latest stable release ( for all current Fedora releases
It won't always even exist. It's temporary.
Perhaps it's better to just build the kernel in koji and have people fetch it directly from there, at least I fail to see what overhead of creating/maintaining a copr repo for just a single GA release is supposed to add to the table.
hitting problems with the rawhide kernel, they should report the bugs.
People are using rawhide kernel with stable release workstation ( F22/F23 ) not rawhide workstation with rawhide.
Nobody but someone that's doing direct testing or development does that since rawhide will never be stable enough for "normal" people to do any work. ( thou certain people exist in the community are under the illusion that it ever will and seem to be putting efforts in trying to achieve which in turn contradicts the entire existence of rawhide in the first place but good for them )
It is also a good idea to keep at least one known good working kernel installed on a rawhide machine, which is one of the main motivations for having 3 kernels installed at a time anyway.
If not they will quickly learn.
Many of those individuals are individuals that have no clue what they are doing and are running the latest kernel based on the word in the street ( street being the internet ) that it fixes something for them.
Good example of that is when David first introduced displayport mst support in Fedora, people that owned thinkpads jumped on those kernel+intel builds in the masses since it quickly became common knowledge it got things working for them.
One could use this COPR to get a stable kernel I guess, but it would involve manual installation if they're already on 4.4-rcX because RPM would view the COPR builds as older.
Nodebug ( for kernel testing ) or fetch from koji specific built is how people are ( and where taught when I was ambassador ) how to get these things if they needed a specific build.
JBG
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:12:27PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/15/2015 03:35 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:20:06PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/15/2015 02:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:33:48PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/20/2015 04:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
4.3.3 has now been release but no sign of it in F23.
It won't be submitted until January. We don't want to do a major rebase the week before most of us go away on PTO. There is a COPR that contains builds from the stabilization branch in Fedora git for those that wish to jump early.
Did not know about that corp repo hence I have to ask...
Is that the latest stable kernel release ( 4.3.3 ) and will always
Not yet. It will be updated to 4.3.3 (or 4.3.4) at some point this week, but 4.3.3 has a known memory leak.
contain the latest stable release ( for all current Fedora releases
It won't always even exist. It's temporary.
Perhaps it's better to just build the kernel in koji and have people fetch it directly from there, at least I fail to see what overhead of creating/maintaining a copr repo for just a single GA release is supposed to add to the table.
There are only two ways to do that:
1) Rebase the release branch in git to 4.3 and then build. 2) Build from a stabilization branch with a release target
1 is a no-go because if we aren't committing to the rebase offically, it makes doing fixes on that branch extremely difficult.
2 can be done (at least to my knowledge there are no checks in koji for git branches), but having it in koji as a random one-off build is also strange.
As a random aside, I would much rather decouple kernel release and Fedora release entirely but our tooling doesn't easily allow it.
One could use this COPR to get a stable kernel I guess, but it would involve manual installation if they're already on 4.4-rcX because RPM would view the COPR builds as older.
Nodebug ( for kernel testing ) or fetch from koji specific built is how people are ( and where taught when I was ambassador ) how to get these things if they needed a specific build.
Yes, in the past. COPR didn't exist in the past. It was created, in part, to do things just like we're doing now. It certainly is different, but I don't see a reason not to use new tools available to us.
josh
On 11/20/2015 04:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Hi All,
Really no different from any of the last major version rebases we've done. We'll likely rebase F23 to the 4.3.y kernel around the time 4.3.1 or 4.3.2 is released upstream. Until then, the stabilization branch is tracking what should eventually be merged into F23.
F22 will follow sometime thereafter. F21 will not be rebased to 4.2 or 4.3 and will go EOL with 4.1.13. Please migrate off of F21 as soon as possible.
If you have questions, please let us know.
4.3.3 has now been release but no sign of it in F23.
It won't be submitted until January. We don't want to do a major rebase the week before most of us go away on PTO. There is a COPR that
Does it make sense to consider just going straight to 4.4 then given it'll be out early Jan?
Peter
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:55:47PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
On 11/20/2015 04:13 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Hi All,
Really no different from any of the last major version rebases we've done. We'll likely rebase F23 to the 4.3.y kernel around the time 4.3.1 or 4.3.2 is released upstream. Until then, the stabilization branch is tracking what should eventually be merged into F23.
F22 will follow sometime thereafter. F21 will not be rebased to 4.2 or 4.3 and will go EOL with 4.1.13. Please migrate off of F21 as soon as possible.
If you have questions, please let us know.
4.3.3 has now been release but no sign of it in F23.
It won't be submitted until January. We don't want to do a major rebase the week before most of us go away on PTO. There is a COPR that
Does it make sense to consider just going straight to 4.4 then given it'll be out early Jan?
That's a good question. Let's assume 4.4 is released on Jan 10, which is a bit longer than normal because of the holidays. 4.4.1 would be out roughly around the beginning of Feb, as long as the normal schedule holds up. So we'd be on 4.2.y for all of Jan, but it will be EOL before then.
Being on 4.3 for a month isn't a terrible thing. It will help narrow down regressions vs. just skipping to 4.4. On the other hand, more churn is more churn.
I think we're going to have to just see how the upstream releases go. I know that doesn't answer the question, but we can keep an eye on it now that you've brought it up.
josh
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:55:47PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
Does it make sense to consider just going straight to 4.4 then given it'll be out early Jan?
That's a good question. Let's assume 4.4 is released on Jan 10, which is a bit longer than normal because of the holidays. 4.4.1 would be out roughly around the beginning of Feb, as long as the normal schedule holds up. So we'd be on 4.2.y for all of Jan, but it will be EOL before then.
4.2 is supposedly EOL now with 4.2.8 being the last release.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:20:48AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:55:47PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
Does it make sense to consider just going straight to 4.4 then given it'll be out early Jan?
That's a good question. Let's assume 4.4 is released on Jan 10, which is a bit longer than normal because of the holidays. 4.4.1 would be out roughly around the beginning of Feb, as long as the normal schedule holds up. So we'd be on 4.2.y for all of Jan, but it will be EOL before then.
4.2 is supposedly EOL now with 4.2.8 being the last release.
Yes, but we realistically aren't going to do a build again before Jan anyway unless there is a major CVE that pops up. If one does, we'd backport it ourselves, or we'd leverage the fact that someone else has picked up long term maintenance of 4.2.y.
josh
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:20:48AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:55:47PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
Does it make sense to consider just going straight to 4.4 then given it'll be out early Jan?
That's a good question. Let's assume 4.4 is released on Jan 10, which
is
a bit longer than normal because of the holidays. 4.4.1 would be out roughly around the beginning of Feb, as long as the normal schedule holds up. So we'd be on 4.2.y for all of Jan, but it will be EOL
before
then.
4.2 is supposedly EOL now with 4.2.8 being the last release.
Yes, but we realistically aren't going to do a build again before Jan anyway unless there is a major CVE that pops up. If one does, we'd backport it ourselves, or we'd leverage the fact that someone else has picked up long term maintenance of 4.2.y.
josh
Sure, I meant as an argument against skipping 4.3 entirely. I don't know that I want to go through Jan backporting bits and supporting 4.2 when 4.3 is a good option until 4.4 is ready for us to push to stable releases.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:50:27AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:20:48AM -0600, Justin Forbes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:55:47PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
Does it make sense to consider just going straight to 4.4 then given it'll be out early Jan?
That's a good question. Let's assume 4.4 is released on Jan 10, which
is
a bit longer than normal because of the holidays. 4.4.1 would be out roughly around the beginning of Feb, as long as the normal schedule holds up. So we'd be on 4.2.y for all of Jan, but it will be EOL
before
then.
4.2 is supposedly EOL now with 4.2.8 being the last release.
Yes, but we realistically aren't going to do a build again before Jan anyway unless there is a major CVE that pops up. If one does, we'd backport it ourselves, or we'd leverage the fact that someone else has picked up long term maintenance of 4.2.y.
josh
Sure, I meant as an argument against skipping 4.3 entirely. I don't know that I want to go through Jan backporting bits and supporting 4.2 when 4.3 is a good option until 4.4 is ready for us to push to stable releases.
Ah, right. OK, I think we're in agreement on that point.
josh
On 12/15/2015 03:55 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Does it make sense to consider just going straight to 4.4 then given it'll be out early Jan?
Arguably it's never a good thing to skip entire kernel release since you loose potential feedback from that release.
It's better to adapt a ( faster ) re-base model.
So far there has not been any problems that I'm aware of with the rebase model in place with the exception of it's ( intentional ) initial delay from upstream release or when the kernel has been split into ( more ) sub components but Josh and the rest of the kernel community might be aware of other shortcomings moving the entire Fedora GA release to the same kernel at the same time when the first 0.1 release has been made and immediately after it has been made ( unless ofcourse there are holidays in the horizon which is the case here and people unavailable during that time ).
JBG
Does it make sense to consider just going straight to 4.4 then given it'll be out early Jan?
Arguably it's never a good thing to skip entire kernel release since you loose potential feedback from that release.
It's better to adapt a ( faster ) re-base model.
So far there has not been any problems that I'm aware of with the rebase model in place with the exception of it's ( intentional ) initial delay from upstream release or when the kernel has been split into ( more ) sub components but Josh and the rest of the kernel community might be aware of other shortcomings moving the entire Fedora GA release to the same kernel at the same time when the first 0.1 release has been made and immediately after it has been made ( unless ofcourse there are holidays in the horizon which is the case here and people unavailable during that time ).
We're talking a one of situation and I'm very aware of all the Fedora kernel history for years. The scenario I mention above is only suggested because 1) the timing of both is very close 2) 4.4 is due to be a LTS kernel and it's likely as a result a lot are ignoring 4.3 altogether 3) a large chunk of QA work to then suddenly have to rebase again in a short period of time.
It was a query to Josh, nothing more.
Hi Josh,
Any update on F23 kernel rebase to 4.3 now that the holiday period has passed? I'm interested in Skylake GPU support.
Thanks, Paul
On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 5:36 AM, paul.f.fee@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Josh,
Any update on F23 kernel rebase to 4.3 now that the holiday period has passed? I'm interested in Skylake GPU support.
Should be rebased by the end of the week. There are a number of CVE fixes that need to go in first.
josh
kernel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Josh Boyer -
Justin Forbes -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Matthew Miller -
paul.f.fee＠gmail.com -
Peter Robinson