this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
507 points (98.7% liked)
Programming
17378 readers
424 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The linux kernel is very old school in how it is run and originally a big part of the DevSecOps movement was removing a lot of manual overhead.
Moving on to something like Gitea (codeberg) would give you a better diff view and is quicker/easier than posting a patch to a mailing list.
The branching model of the kernel is something people write up on paper that looks great (much like Gitflow) but is really time consuming to manage. Moving to feature branch workflow and creating a release branches as part of the release process allows a ton of things to be automated and simplified.
Similarly file systems aren't really device specific, so you could build system tests for them for benchmarking and standard use cases.
Setting up a CI to perform smoke testing and linting, is fairly standard.
Its really easy to setup a CI to trigger when a new branch/pr is created/updated, this means review becomes reduced to checking business logic which makes reviews really quick and easy.
Similarly moving on to a decent issue tracker, Jira's support for Epic's/stories/tasks/capabilities and its linking ability is a huge simplifier for long term planning.
You can do things like define OKR's and then attach Epics to them and Stories/tasks to epics which lets you track progress to goals.
You can use issues the way the linux community currently uses mailing lists.
Combined with a Kanban board for tracking, progress of tickets. You remove a ton of pain.
Although open source issue trackers are missing the key productivity enablers of Jira, which makes these improvements hard to realise.
The issue is people, the linux kernel maintainers have been working one way for decades. Getting them to adopt new tools will be heavily resisted, same with changing how they work.
Its like everyone outside, knows a breaking the ABI definition from the sub system implementation would create a far more stable ABI which would solve a bunch of issues and allow change when needed, except no one in the kernel will entertain the idea.
You offered a lot of suggestions, and I'm sure people will disagree over the specifics, but I think your overall point is excellent and not talked about enough. I wonder if anyone has ever even attempted a survey on the ages of maintainers/contributors? I bet it's skewing older fast.
Nothing wrong with that of course, especially given the project's age, complexity, and being written in C - but you're right, at some point you have to attract new talent - people can't maintain forever.
I'm a 29 year old developer - I didn't even know you could do git patches via email until recently. And while it's super cool, it also sounds kinda terrible, especially at the volume they must be receiving? Their own docs are saying the mailing lists receive some 500 emails per day and I can't imagine the merge process is fun.
So many doc pages are dedicated to how to submit a patch - which is great that it's documented, and I'm sure it will always be somewhat complicated for a large project - but it also feels like things that are all automatically handled by newer tools / bots which can automatically enforce style checks, etc.
I guess they could argue that the complicated process acts as a filter to people submitting PRs who don't know what they are doing, but I'd argue it also shuts out talented engineers who don't have 40 hours to learn how to submit a patch to a project on top of also learning the kernel and also fixing the bug in question.
From what little I read of their git process, does anyone know if there's anything preventing the maintainer of a subsystem from setting up a more modern method for receiving patches? As long as the upstream artifact to the kernel has the expected format?
What long term planning? Who is going to come up with that plan? Will everyone agree to that plan? Who will be paying for the resources to work on that plan?
I am not seeing how that would help. What are you going to do if there is no progress on something? Fire volunteer X because he didn't make progress on ticket Y (as he has no interest in ticket Y)?
Modern ticket system or issue tracker? Yes, absolutely. But Jira? Certainly not, considering Atlassian's business practices. A project like Linux deserves a system where they can maintain some control and it probably should be open source.
Yeah email is ancient and certainly terrible from a usability perspective if you're an outsider to the workflows, but at least it can't be shut off or taken away on a whim. Also it's universal and therefore accessible.
Yeah. If core Linux teams publicly adopt an open source KanBan board, issue tracker, and code review tool, I am a lot more likely to adopt and help maintain those products.
I have no interest in navigating the politics and history to join any core Linux teams, but I contribute in other parts of open source.
I guess I'm saying the only place I'm really interested in working with the core teams is on whatever DevOps tools they adopt.
We also can’t go back to fix SMTP either. Simply saying “we need to break ABI” is not a solution for the same reason, the fear Darrick mentions in the email is justified, it’s the fear of e-mails when you change something that breaks everyone’s widget in a way they don’t expect or care to learn about and demand you fix it for them. It’s all well and good to say that they should simply wash their hands of it, but that’s not an option when your inbox is flooded with automated bug reports that don’t explain the problem
I am actually arguing for a stable ABI.
The few times I have had to compile out of tree drivers for the linux kernel its usually failed because the ABI has changed.
Each time I have looked into it, I found code churn, e.g. changing an enum to a char (or the other way) or messing with the parameter order.
If I was empire of the world, the linux kernel would be built using conan.io, with device trees pulling down drivers as dependencies.
The Linux ABI Headers would move out into their own seperately managed project. Which is released and managed at its own rate. Subsystem maintainers would have to raise pull requests to change the ABI and changing a parameter from enum to char because you prefer chars wouldn't be good enough.
Each subsystem would be its own "project" and with a logical repository structure (e.g. intel and amd gpu drivers don't share code so why would they be in the same repo?) And built against the appropriate ABI version with each repository released at its own rate.
Unsupported drivers would then be forked into their own repositories. This simplifies depreciation since its external to the supported drivers and doesn't need to be refactored or maintained. If distributions can build them and want to include the driver they can.
Linus job would be to maintain the core kernel, device trees and ABI projects and provide a bill of materials for a selection of linux kernel/abi/drivers version which are supported.
Lastly since every driver is a descrete buildable component, it would make it far easier for distributions to check if the driver is compatible (e.g. change a dependency version and build) with the kernel ABI they are using and provide new drivers with the build.
None of this will ever happen. C/C++ developers loath dependency management and people can ve stringly attached to mono repos for some reason.
Kernel is not a monolithic application, and you cannot develop it like one. There are tons of actors: independent developers, small support companies (like Collabora), corporations, all with different priorities. There is a large number of independent forks (e.g. for obscure devices), that will never be merged, but need to merge e.g. security patches from the mainline. A single project management tool won't do, not your typical business grade tracking&reporting tool.
CI is already there. Not a central one—again, distributed across different organizations. Different organizations have different needs for CI, e.g. supporting weird architectures that they need to develop against.
There is a reason Torvalds created git—existing tools just wouldn't work. There might be a place for a similar revolution regarding a bugtracker…