Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 20:07:07
Message-Id: 20130820220656.3f16172c@TOMWIJ-GENTOO
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies by Rich Freeman
1 On Tue, 20 Aug 2013 15:41:42 -0400
2 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > > Let me dig up an example...
5 > >
6 > > Our last sys-kernel/gentoo-sources stabilization was 3 months ago:
7 >
8 > I don't really see a problem with stable package being all of 3 months
9 > old. Contrast that with youtube-dl which pull from ~arch and rebuild
10 > about 3x/week.
11
12 For something that releases once to twice a week, it is a problem;
13 we're not talking about a package that gets some slow commits here, no,
14 let's run `git log --oneline v3.8.13..v3.10.7 | wc -l`: 28233
15
16 That's a lot of commits; now you need to realize that every single
17 commit in this means something, a lot of them are bug fixes (stability,
18 security, reliability, anti corruption, ...) whereas of course a part of
19 it also introduces parts of new features and refactoring.
20
21 Desktop users might not care for all of these, but sysadmins will;
22 actually, that's what this thread is about, they are switching to ~
23 because of things like this. Who are we stabilizing for then?!
24
25 > If somebody needs a newer kernel they can run it.
26
27 Upstream has advised people that people must upgrade 3 months ago...
28
29 > I needed something so I accepted <3.10, and it looks like I'll either
30 > have to accept <3.11 now or just live with 3.9 until stable catches
31 > up. I don't really see a problem with either unless I'm looking to
32 > fix some particular bug.
33
34 This last paragraph has nothing to do with stabilization; we shouldn't
35 expect users to define stable themselves, also note that not all bugs
36 are visible. So, we can't just be careless and wait another month...
37
38 While this is a large scale example, the same happens in smaller scale
39 to other packages; I don't mean to focus on the kernel, but rather use
40 it as an example to show the underlying problem:
41
42 Bitrot due to a lack of resources.
43
44 --
45 With kind regards,
46
47 Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
48 Gentoo Developer
49
50 E-mail address : TomWij@g.o
51 GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D
52 GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: stabilization policies Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o>