| 1 |
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Mike Pagano <mpagano@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> To summarize. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> In this instance, as this moment: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> 1. Only enter stable req bugs for 3.18 and 3.17. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I assume this bit is just a transition since we don't want to |
| 9 |
downgrade from 3.17/18 to 3.14, and that once we get the next longterm |
| 10 |
we'll just follow that? If we kept doing delayed stablereqs on the |
| 11 |
latest stable then users are going to tend to be behind on the fixes |
| 12 |
just as they are today since they won't run longterm by default. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> 2. Once they enter LTS, then auto stable going forward. |
| 15 |
> 3. At this moment, auto stable 3.14, 3.12, 3.10 and 3.4. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
++ |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> If this is what you're saying, this would make things much better for me and |
| 21 |
> better for our users. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Who needs to bless this? Council, Arch Teams, Rich0, God, my dog? |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Not that it means anything, but you have a +4 from me and my cats |
| 27 |
(just be happy I don't let them post here - FYI they're easily bribed |
| 28 |
with food). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I'd suggest that the kernel maintainers can "just do it" if there is |
| 31 |
no objection after a few days. Escalation is for when there is |
| 32 |
disagreement. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Rich |
Archives