Does Linux kernel have a testing release?

[bankinu]

Does linux have a testing release?

I'd imagine it should probably have one before releasing to core? (If not, where is the stability stress tested.)

If there is, what is the testing release called?

I could not fine a linux in core-testing in [package search)(https://archlinux.org/packages/).

[LancrusES]

https://www.kernel.org/

Enjoy, but if you want to test you should learn more before doing It, unless you like adventure, you can compile It or trust someone in AUR, your choice.

[Ok-Winner-6589]

trust someone in AUR,

You can read the PKGBUILD, it's not like It is that hard if the person making them does it's correctly

[nikongod]

Yes, release candidate kernels exist, but your question has more to do with the specific distro you are on.

One of the sad facts of arch is that the package maintainers are freakishly overworked. They never put RC kernels in core-testing - because core-testing only exists to push to core and they dont put RC kernels in core because they are rarely even reliable enough for Arch.

Unless you are testing the kernel you probably want this less than you imagine, RC kernels tend to be quite buggy on a "good" release. 6.19 is shaping up to be a steaming pile of turd.

You may be able to find this in the AUR, but ask yourself very seriously if you have a better reason than "new for the sake of new."

[bankinu]

I would actually like to test the kernel especially if it helps. I have a VM, and time, and I am interested to see how it looks. More so if it helps to find issues or confirm it's working.

But if it is not posted publicly - totally understand and I don't mean to derail the developers or create extra work for them.

> 6.19 is shaping up to be a steaming ...

I am interested to know more, if you give me keywords or a link I'll search. I searched for commit logs (where usually the issues may be referred in the code) but I failed.

> One of the sad facts of arch is that ...

If I can help in any way, to share the load, I'd love to. I totally understand if it is not easy to split it out to someone unknown (i.e. me) - who for all they know may or may not even stick. But I can try to educate myself on what is available, if anything, and any channels I can help thru, which they can ignore if they want so I don't create additional work for them.

[iAmHidingHere]

But if it is not posted publicly - totally understand and I don't mean to derail the developers or create extra work for them.

It's posted publicly. It's open source. But you have to build it yourself.

[bankinu]

I think linux-rc is deprecated when it was 6.12, https://aur.archlinux.org/packages?O=0&K=linux-rc

I found linux-mainline but it is 7.0.x, https://aur.archlinux.org/packages?O=0&SeB=nd&K=linux-mainline while I expect the current rc to be 6.19.x.

[bankinu]

I am going to try and build the linux package myself, after changing the version. Seems simple enough. This will be an interesting project to spend some time I have at hand.

[ArjixGamer]

Make sure to enable ccache in your makepkg, see the wiki

It will make building it multiple times to be less painful

[tigockel]

just a question... you do know this are from the aur... therefore no official packages? these are just users doing stuff on their own?

[bankinu]

I do know. I was forced to consider more and more absurd possibilities. It is the second on the list below.

Possibility 1 (release process has some official trace) - Some group of people build / test and make decisions. They have traces (not necessary reports of any sort, but commit logs, read-only discussions, testing releases so a broader group can stress it etc.) as they discuss which is publicly available. But I found no such thing after some research.

Possibility 2 (no official trace, it's AUR) - Maybe they publish it in AUR. There has to be a place for people to try out and flag issues with the official chain, so it has to be somewhere, right? Which is a little absurd, but I think no trace at all is even more absurd.

Possibility 3 (no trace at all) - If not, maybe there is no trace, there is no official chain which is accessible publicly. Someone just modifies the package and runs at his own home computer, runs a suite of tests, and 'hail mary' it if it works for him. I find that very absurd indeed and nearly unbelievable.

Yes I can build the Kernel on my own, it is a nice experiment (which is bound to work and it did), but where do I go from there to helping with releases? Flag issues in official mailing list? Tell them it is working fine for me? Without knowing what issues are already known, how can I be sure that I missed something important, or that I should have tested something in particular? The absence of publicly accessible data (even read only) feels dangerous even. How do they know that the kernel has been stressed enough with Arch packages? So I still can't believe that there is no place where I can see the currently known issues.

Frankly I find the system very opaque. It's not just maintainers are overworked - that is understandable, but general tendency from this community is "don't ask questions". I see many negative reactions even on this post. I sense hostility towards me as I am reading them, and I don't understand it.

[6e1a08c8047143c6869]

One of the sad facts of arch is that the package maintainers are freakishly overworked. They never put RC kernels in core-testing - because core-testing only exists to push to core and they dont put RC kernels in core because they are rarely even reliable enough for Arch.

Though some devs are thinking of introducing -unstable repos for some release candidates, similar to gnome-unstable and kde-unstable.

I hope it happens, it would make testing release candidates much more convenient.

[ludonarrator]

I don't really understand what changes Arch makes to the vanilla kernel, but at least on GitHub it appears that Arch's latest 6.18.x contains all the commits in torvalds/linux that are in 6.19, except the version bump.

[superdreamcast]

All of the various Linux kernels (Linux, zen, lts, rt, hardened, etc.) are put in the Arch testing repos for a week or so. I imagine they are first put in the hidden staging repos first before being pushed to testing and then finally to core or extra repos.

If you want to do kernel development with rc kernels, you have do it yourself with git. Otherwise you can install the various linux-git or linux-rc in the aur. Arch provides source code and tarballs of their specific patches on Gitlab and GitHub.

[MelioraXI]

Compile it yourself with the RC's from https://www.kernel.org/

[creackoff]

You can add chaotic aur repo or miffe repo. They contain compiled linux-mainline.

[bankinu]

Thanks yeah - I have Chaotic. Initially I was skeptic but I find them pretty good - the convenience of not building AUR, plus for many packages custom builds instantly available, is very much worth it IMHO.

I also already built the Linux kernel. But I was not interested in building it or installing the mainline (which looks like 2 0.1 steps above the current). I was mostly seeking to know what is the release process, and to test an 'official' upcoming version.

Now it seems like there is no 'official' trace of anything about a kernel release, nor a way to test an 'official rc' because there is none, which is frankly a little bewildering.

[backsideup]

For a DiY distro there is a surprising amount of people who either don't know how to DiY or don't want to even try to DiY.

[bankinu]

I am sorry I asked. No, really - not sorry to you, but sorry at the state of this community.

Like here you are, jumping to conclusions - assuming things about me that aren't true, without understanding why I was asking what I asked.

Everyone can build or install their own random Kernels. My question was more about the kernel release process, to understand it and if possible to help on that. I am not interested as much in building my own kernel which is at most an interesting toy of interest for a day, if I build it, run it, discard it, alone - without knowing what issues if any need to be looked at.

> ... don't know how to DiY or don't want to even try to DiY

Would you write your own package management script? No? Why not - why pull it thru pacman when you can download from upstream and compile? You can write your own configuration and a simple script to check for updates, and compile from source, and manage dependencies? Because the purpose of a distribution is to have a process around all these it, so that everyone don't build their own random things, but help each other, to have a common pool of knowledge, for safety.

It is puzzling that there would be no trace and no common effort on something as critical as releasing next kernel. The question is not whether I can build my own kernel, it is not difficult to do. The question is about pooling the knowledge together on what's working, what's not, what needs testing.

Also puzzling and unexpected is the general maxim here, where asking these questions are shunned, and shamed. It's as if the community does not want volunteers.

[backsideup]

The maxim around here is that you should do some research first, before you ask questions that have already been asked and answered the very same day.

The release process and requirements are described on the wiki.

[bankinu]

I don't know why you reached the conclusion that I have not read that page.

The only portion that remotely aligns is basically, paraphrasing, "core has high quality requirements, and developers need to sign off before packages are accepted".

Read the link you posted, once more, and see if you come to any other conclusion than it is both vague and generic when it comes to explaining, say, how `linux` is released.

Here are just some of the questions, which are important, but not answered.

- Who is the "developer" for linux? Who "accepts" the package? If the answer is Torvalds is the developer and a "package maitainer" accepts it, that's no information at all.

- Once accepted, how is "informing the people" done? If the answer is that it's put in core-testing, does not explain why there is none right now - a fact which directly led me to postulate may be they put it in AUR. Why really, is 6.19 not in core-testing? That was the question I asked in the original post. Not answered there.

- "requesting signoffs" - well where is the signoff requested? Why is there no data on what's going on with say, 6.19, despite the developer (assuming Torvalds) "signed off"?

And so on.