| 1 |
Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> > > See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know |
| 3 |
> > > some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always |
| 6 |
> > the one with the most fixes. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That's what us kernel developers have been saying for 10+ years, nice to |
| 9 |
> see it's finally getting some traction :) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
It has been obvious for me for a very long time as well, but I am |
| 12 |
just one person, and my idea doesn't seem to have much traction in |
| 13 |
Gentoo. :\ |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > Rather than separating "bug fixes" from "security fixes" maybe it's |
| 17 |
> > wiser to think about separating "fixes" from "features" - this may |
| 18 |
> > be easier, but still not neccessarily easy. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> For stable kernel releases, that type of thing should be quite easy for |
| 21 |
> someone to do, if they want to do it, as the only type of "features" I |
| 22 |
> take for them are new device ids. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> But I fail to see how marking 5 patches out of 100 as "features" is |
| 25 |
> really doing to do much for anyone, do you? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
For stable kernel releases there would be no need. I think they |
| 28 |
should be stabilized automatically in Gentoo. It's simply a more |
| 29 |
accurate model of upstream. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
//Peter |
Archives