Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies

[Tom Wijsman]

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:46:17 +0400
Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote:

> 21.08.2013 12:25, Tom Wijsman пишет:
> >
> > 3.10 is not a shiny new version, it has been in the Portage tree
> > for 7 weeks now (upstream release at 2013-06-30 22:13:42 (GMT));
> > so, that's almost double the time you are suggesting.
> >
>
> Current stabilization target(3.10.7) was added to tree:
>
> *gentoo-sources-3.10.7 (15 Aug 2013)
>
>   15 Aug 2013; Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
> +gentoo-sources-3.0.91.ebuild,
>   +gentoo-sources-3.10.7.ebuild, +gentoo-sources-3.4.58.ebuild,
>   -gentoo-sources-3.0.87.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.10.4.ebuild,
>   -gentoo-sources-3.10.5-r1.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.10.6.ebuild,
>   -gentoo-sources-3.4.54.ebuild:
>   Version bumps 3.0.91, 3.4.58 and 3.10.7. Removed old. (skip)
>
>
> So it is definitely NOT 7 weeks(30 days period counting from time when
> ordinary user can install it through portage, thus - after hitting
> portage tree). You know, that we can lighten stabilization
> requirements of 30 days sometimes, but let's be honest.

That is 3.10.7, not 3.10; please look into how kernel releases work,
minor releases are merely a small number of "backported" "known" fixes.

What you propose, waiting 30 days for a minor; simply doesn't work
when there are one to two minors a week, it puts us even more behind...

> > Why should an external proprietary module that does not fix what is
> > broken for 7 weeks now block stabilization; it has never blocked
> > stabilization before, and I do not see a reason it should now...
> >
> >> And that fact, that you can successfully build and run kernel for a
> >> couple of hours, does not make it "good, well tested stable
> >> candidate"
> >
> > Having people run it for 7 weeks is not a couple of hours.
> >
>
> First of all, as i said early - it is NOT 7 weeks(thus - not a couple
> of hours either).

It is 7 weeks.

> And example with Nvidia drivers is not point of beginning a flamewar.
> We ARE a distro. Then, we should propose INTEGRATION of some kind.

Well, by bringing it up on the ML it will become one; I'm simply not
interested in this, decisions were taken a very long time ago anyway.

> If some open-source modules with active upstreams, included in
> portage, do not support yet 3.10.* which will lead to unbootable
> system for some stable users - what you should say? "Oops, sorry,
> guys?" That's not how stable should work.

That's how it has always worked, we do not see a need to change this.

> We should either mark such modules as forever unstable (or even
> mask?), saying "guys, shit happens, do not use this in Gentoo, unless
> you are dead sure, that you can handle problems with updates" or
> slowing down stabilization(i am not talking about security
> stabilization right now).

Tell them, I am interested if this will cause a change; I guess not...

> And as for security stabilization, if you
> say that version bump BRINGS security fixes, you KNOW what they are,
> and you do NOT file a security bug about old stable(and now -
> vulnerable!) kernel on Gentoo bugzilla, then current stabilization
> bug has no relation to security(as Gentoo Security team does not know
> about security problems), period.

Actually, those are constantly filed by ago; please look at the picture
first before you describe it, because you are drawing assumptions here.

> > Well, my thoughts is that the way we are doing it now we aren't
> > going to be able to deal with the lack of resources; so, a
> > different approach is necessary and I don't see how it is "old, but
> > also breakable"...
> >
>
> I undestand your disturbance as Gentoo Kernel team member. But your
> proposal does not seem good to me.

There is not a proposal in that quote; and through this thread, I and
others have made multiple proposals, I'm not sure what you refer to...

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@g.o
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D