0.5.5 release planning (Was Re: [PATCH] fix spec if rebuild from distributed package)

[Richard Hughes]

On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 10:31 -0500, Jon Nettleton wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 13:43 +0000, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 09:19 -0500, Jon Nettleton wrote:
> > > I believe that in the earlier thread when the first patch was proposed
> > > by Danny Kukawka, there was some discussion as to whether this was a
> > > kernel bug or not.  In that thread Kay Sievers seemed to be of the
> > > opinion this was the proper way to work with the kernel, and it's
> > > possible event timing idiosyncrasies.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Does the mounting work now?
> > > 
> > > With Danny's patch the mounting did work much better, almost perfect.  I
> > > created my revision for the following reasons.
> > > 
> > > 1)  Under high latency environments this gives a bit more stability by
> > > retrying more and giving up to .6 seconds for /proc/mounts to be updated
> > > 2)  It stays in the function for shortest possible time (relatively) for
> > > both mount and unmount events. Previously unmount had to always go
> > > through the delay loop.
> > > 3)  By doing obscene things on the desktop, ie. mounting and unmounting
> > > a cdrom while unpugging my 6 port card reader with multiple cards in it
> > > and plugging and unplugging multiple usb drives I could get the race
> > > condition to happen.  I know this is an absolutely ridiculous situation,
> > > but I would like the removable media process in Hal to be as reliable as
> > > possible.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > As for 0.5.5, my acpi, apm and pmu updates are always trickling in, so
> > > > whenever is convenient for you David, is good for me.
> > > > 
> > > > We haven't had a release in ages, and I'm fed up of telling the ubuntu
> > > > and rawhide people "bug fixed in CVS"... :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Richard.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I am not in love with this exact patch by any means, it was more of a
> > > design proposal.  I am completely open on any changes suggested, or
> > > ditching it all together.
> > 
> > Can we get 0.5.5 out of the door before we do any more invasive patches?
> > 
> > Richard.
> > 
> 
> Sure let's do it.  I am ready when you are.

One more bug. Using /proc/acpi/events and then doing a hibernate makes
addon-acpi crash as it looses the /proc/acpi event source and bails out.
Looks like we *do* need to include the proc event in the while(1) loop.

Richard.