Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

[Markos Chandras]

On 24 July 2013 21:59, Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:16:59 +0200
> Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:
>
>> Alex Xu wrote:
>> > >>> Maybe it would make sense to automatically stabilize every v-s
>> > >>> kernel right away?
>> > >>
>> > >> As has been stated, this implies that Gentoo QA has tested the
>> > >> packages and found them to be reasonably safe for use.
>> > > ..
>> > >> Although stable kernels *have* been tested by many people before
>> > >> use, Gentoo QA has *not* (officially) tested them, at least not
>> > >> on every architecture.
>> > >
>> > > I don't think that matters.
>> >
>> > If you don't care too much for Gentoo QA
>>
>> The point is that when arch teams find that they can not keep up with
>> the pace of upstream and choose never to attempt stabilize v-s then
>> clearly Gentoo QA will also not be able to keep up with that pace and
>> thus Gentoo QA becomes irrelevant for the particular package.
>
> No, stabilization of vanilla-sources would be an addition in work
> required; one can not assume that if gentoo-sources is stable than
> vanilla-sources is or vice versa. Also, the premise here is that
> vanilla-sources would need to be stabilized every version; and not just
> once per branch (we would like two or three though) as gentoo-sources.
>
>> The original post also mentioned that generally v-s has more fixes
>> than anything coming from stabilization efforts.
>
> More fixes; but also more regressions, new features, more 0-days, ...
>
>> It seems that for this package Gentoo QA can not realistically add
>> any value to this package, hence my suggestion not to pretend that
>> they can, and just remove the distinction between ~arch and arch for
>> v-s, and make the latest version available to users by default.
>
> That's a contradiction; their added value is it being deemed stable,
> they can't just pretend it is stable, that overrides the distinction.
>
> For as far that I know there is nowhere in the tree we provide matters
> that walk past Gentoo; so, why should they make an exception here?
>
>> > >> On a technical level, it's not that hard to put
>> > >> "sys-kernel/vanilla-sources" in your package.accept_keywords.
>> > >
>> > > But why should Gentoo users have to do that in order to use v-s?
>> >
>> > So they acknowledge that vanilla-sources has not been officially
>> > tested by Gentoo QA.
>>
>> Since v-s is a special case that Gentoo QA is known not to handle,
>> this overhead seems completely unneccessary to me. And the usability
>> is of course poor.
>
> If Gentoo QA can't handle it, why could our users; if they are to make
> a poor sense of stability, that suffices to make it an explicit choice.
>
>> > > If it is intentional to push g-s onto users then it makes good
>> > > sense
>> ..
>> > I can't comment on that.
>>
>> I guess this is really the pivotal point. If Gentoo prefers to push
>> g-s rather than v-s then adding overhead for v-s kernels is fine. I'd
>> prefer Gentoo to push v-s instead.
>
> If this weren't intentional, we wouldn't be doing this; the kernel team
> exists to add value and not just to blindly follow upstream.
>
> Let me quote the project description:
>
> "With an ever increasing userbase demanding a higher quality of stable,
> production-ready kernel sources and featureful desktop support the
> professionalism and staffing of the kernel project is very important.
>
> Because we as users want the best from Gentoo Linux we supply a
> selection of both generic and specialised sources capable of handling
> the day-to-day grind to make life a little easier.
>
> In order to provide a rich choice of high quality kernel trees Gentoo
> Linux must apply, write and test several kernel patches to the official
> upstream releases before they can offer finished ebuilds to the users.
> This is where the Gentoo Kernel project comes into play."
>
> --
> 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

This thread derailed as usual.

The kernel team made a decision. We can simply accept it and move on.
Stable keywords imply at least a minimal build and runtime testing by
arch teams.
Since we have no manpower to do it, then stabilizing them blindly is
not appropriate.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras - Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~hwoarang