| 1 |
On Friday, January 02, 2015 04:05:42 PM Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Mike Pagano <mpagano@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > To summarize. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > In this instance, as this moment: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > 1. Only enter stable req bugs for 3.18 and 3.17. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I assume this bit is just a transition since we don't want to |
| 10 |
> downgrade from 3.17/18 to 3.14, and that once we get the next longterm |
| 11 |
> we'll just follow that? If we kept doing delayed stablereqs on the |
| 12 |
> latest stable then users are going to tend to be behind on the fixes |
| 13 |
> just as they are today since they won't run longterm by default. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I would not "destabilize" 3.17 (or anything for that matter). So those people |
| 16 |
would not be affected. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > 2. Once they enter LTS, then auto stable going forward. |
| 19 |
> > 3. At this moment, auto stable 3.14, 3.12, 3.10 and 3.4. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> ++ |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> > If this is what you're saying, this would make things much better for me |
| 24 |
> > and better for our users. |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > Who needs to bless this? Council, Arch Teams, Rich0, God, my dog? |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Not that it means anything, but you have a +4 from me and my cats |
| 29 |
> (just be happy I don't let them post here - FYI they're easily bribed |
| 30 |
> with food). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Good news, I wasn't sure if I should CC them or not. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
> I'd suggest that the kernel maintainers can "just do it" if there is |
| 35 |
> no objection after a few days. Escalation is for when there is |
| 36 |
> disagreement. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
That sounds like good advice. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Mike Pagano |
| 42 |
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project |
| 43 |
Team Lead - Gentoo Sources |
| 44 |
E-Mail : mpagano@g.o |
| 45 |
GnuPG FP : EEE2 601D 0763 B60F 848C 9E14 3C33 C650 B576 E4E3 |
| 46 |
Public Key : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xB576E4E3&op=index |
Archives