Tom Sightler wrote:
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 14:24 -0400, Brian Long wrote:
<snip> Another way to look at the same situation is this though (from RH's perspective) is ... we already broke something that created the other problem with a regression, so we don't want to make it worse with a quick fix that breaks something else that potentially effects even more customers than the first issue.
For example, the current issue that I posted about regarding the RHEL4 kernel crashing is a known entity being hit by many users. It was introduced in the 2.6.9-67.0.20 kernel and is a known problem with a known fix. The official Redhat response "There is a known problem with this kernel that affects some customers in certain circumstances, engineering is working on a fix and test kernels are going through QA. No kernel is released without the QA process". Well, that's great that you have a QA process, never mind that it's a process that allowed you to release a kernel that WILL BREAK at least some of your users critical systems (systems running Oracle databases seem to be at high risk, we lost 3 of 5 in less that 24 hours). In the meantime your customers are installing kernels that are likely to break their systems. Sure, perhaps it only affects 1% of systems.
Can you point me at a bug entry for the above issue and a its fix?
Shouldn't we expect Redhat to tell us that the current kernel is known to be broken? At a bare minimum, a nice "Known Issues" page for eachrelease might be useful, with workarounds if any.
Is that not what the Red Hat bugzilla is ??? They almost always have advance patches available there for most issues. The problem I have with the bugzilla is that MANY things are in there, but are marked as PRIVATE. I think that most things should be public and only private as a last resort. Then everyone can find the fixes if they want. That's what Cisco,
and many other companies do. That way there is at least a method for users to check for known problems when they hit something. Maybe that could be a community effort.
WRT to a community effort, CentOS does sometimes create packages for major issues like kernels (and normally posts links to those in the relevant RH Bugzilla entries). We do this so that the CentOS users (and RHEL users if they want) can optionally install these fixes while waiting for these changes to go through QA in RHEL. An example is the recent nss_ldap issue, where we have had a fix out that SEEMS to fix most of the issues on the day we released 5.2. That might be one option for some users, it may not work for everyone though.
Later, Tom
I do want to disclose that I am a CentOS developer and also to point out that CentOS is in no way supported by or affiliated with Red Hat, Inc. Thanks, Johnny Hughes
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
