| 1 |
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> That's not to say that gentoo-sources shouldn't follow the regular |
| 3 |
> overall stabilization policies, but focusing on the kernel as the |
| 4 |
> impetus for adjusting the stabilization policy or pointing out what's |
| 5 |
> wrong with the policy as a whole seems to be a bad use-case for this |
| 6 |
> discussion. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
++ |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I track ~arch on a few packages and few get anywhere near the kernel |
| 11 |
in terms of update frequency. The ones that do are usually little |
| 12 |
niche utilities that cause little issue if they break (calibre, |
| 13 |
youtube-dl, etc). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
The kernel also benefits from an unusually robust quality system |
| 16 |
outside of Gentoo. I'm not saying that this is the only project that |
| 17 |
has strong quality upstream, but few packages that update so often do. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
That said, kernel updates are not without issue either. There are |
| 20 |
certainly have been changes in behavior that impact other system deps |
| 21 |
in the past. So if for whatever reason we do stabilize kernels more |
| 22 |
often we'll have to make sure the kernel team is extra vigilant for |
| 23 |
these kinds of changes and that they coordinate accordingly (the fact |
| 24 |
that ~arch doesn't break often suggests that this is likely already |
| 25 |
happening). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives