| 1 |
03.01.2015 00:53, Mike Pagano пишет: |
| 2 |
> On Saturday, January 03, 2015 12:39:39 AM Mikle Kolyada wrote: |
| 3 |
>> 02.01.2015 20:25, Mike Pagano пишет: |
| 4 |
>>> This is in no way complaining about how long it takes to stabilize a |
| 5 |
>>> kernel. |
| 6 |
>> As for this fact. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> <hat type="arch teams developer"> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> The main problem is that: we only can test sources on machine we can |
| 11 |
>> reboot. For example me and Agostino |
| 12 |
>> have access to the rest hardware like alpha, ia64 and so on. But we |
| 13 |
>> can't reboot it for clear reason i think. |
| 14 |
>> Another side is that: not all hardware i have around can use |
| 15 |
>> gentoo-sources, so it works with custom kernels. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> </hat> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Mikle, |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Let me reiterate. This should be in no way interpreted as an attack on the |
| 22 |
> arch teams. I'm getting more and more constrained by life and slacking like |
| 23 |
> crazy, so I would never complain about the amount of time other volunteers put |
| 24 |
> into this distribution. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> AFAIC, you definitely don't need to defend the arch teams whom I respect and |
| 27 |
> whose efforts I greatly appreciate. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Mike |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Mike, i think there was no attacking/defending here, just some |
| 33 |
misunderstanding. In my point of view, Mikle just wanted to say that |
| 34 |
proper testing of kernel requires booting in that kernel(it's obvious, i |
| 35 |
think). And, while we, as arch team members, have access for those |
| 36 |
machines, there is big problem: if tested kernel will panic - we are |
| 37 |
stuck until machine's owner will fix it. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
And you understand, how he would be disappointed, especially if nobody |
| 40 |
warns him. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
That's not related to kernel exclusively. That's the common problem for |
| 43 |
all system stuff, that can break, while you have only remote access for |
| 44 |
the machine. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
That's why i prefer to test kernel, Glibc, OpenRC, udev, etc. on |
| 47 |
machines, that i have physical access on. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
So, i like your idea to stick stable to the LTS kernel. While it can |
| 50 |
lead to potential problems with some external modules(which are, for |
| 51 |
example, marked stable now but does not support 3.4 kernel) the majority |
| 52 |
of really stable external kernel modules usually backward compatible |
| 53 |
with LTS kernels. And, as they get security fixes and breaks rarely(at |
| 54 |
least much more rare, than migrating from 3.X to 3.X+1), people, i think |
| 55 |
who likes stable will be much more happy. At least i will be for sure :-) |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
-- |
| 59 |
Best regards, Sergey Popov |
| 60 |
Gentoo developer |
| 61 |
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead |
| 62 |
Gentoo Quality Assurance project lead |
| 63 |
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead |
Archives