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

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote:
> Ben Kohler wrote:
>> > I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should
>> > perhaps be the default for Gentoo users.
>>
>> You seem to be ignoring the regressions that often come with new kernel
>> releases, the very common breakage caused in stable "genkernel all", and
>> other various complications.  Unleashing brand new kernel.org sources on
>> stable users as soon as they are released seems crazy to me.
>
> I don't know, I think it makes a lot of sense..
>
> Users who upgrade their kernels (don't upgrade if you don't want to)
> would be able to participate upstream with reports and confirmations.

How will users know which kernels they should upgrade to.  If the
latest is always the greatest then:
1.  Why wouldn't users always update 2x/week?
2.  Why doesn't every other distro do this?

The reality is that there are multiple kernel versions that are
getting updates at any time.  The latest and greatest is also the one
where all the new features are introduced, and likely all the
regressions.  Fixes are backported to older kernels which are still
supported.

Stable shouldn't track the latest kernel.  At best it should track the
latest version of an older kernel series.  It need not be an LTS one,
but it shouldn't be the current dev branch.

Also, not all fixes are equal.  The ones that are the biggest concern
are security fixes.  If you tell me that the kernel has a new exploit
2x/week then I'll start to wonder when the kernel team started
outsourcing to MS.  Most fixes provide no benefit to most users.
Upgrading kernels on Gentoo is not automatic either, especially if you
have an initramfs, complex configuration, modules in outside packages
(nvidia, virtualization, etc), and so on.

It just seems like we should be able to get by without a semiweekly
kernel upgrade on our "stable" branch.

Rich