Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Pagano <mpagano@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources - should we stable?
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 20:46:18
Message-Id: 6740960.f7SHVZzJqP@crow
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources - should we stable? by Rich Freeman
1 On Friday, January 02, 2015 03:30:40 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
2 > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote:
3 > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
4 > > Hash: SHA256
5 > >
6 > > On 02/01/15 02:57 PM, Mike Pagano wrote:
7 > >> I understand your point. Maybe waiting a few days to auto stable
8 > >> makes sense, because less than 7 days later, a new version with
9 > >> bug/security fixes is released.
10 > >>
11 > >> Isn't our current rate of stabilization "selling" a promise of
12 > >> stability we can't stand behind?
13 > >>
14 > >> Mike
15 > >
16 > > Well to be perfectly honest, the current-stable 3.16 and 3.17 kernels
17 > > for me at least have some rather unfortunate regressions over 3.15 and
18 > > previous, so even with the stabilization we're achieving now I don't
19 > > think we're living up to our "promise of stability" :)
20 >
21 > As a btrfs user I went through quite a bit of pain in the whole
22 > 3.15-17 series, but I that probably isn't a typical mainstream user
23 > experience. This sort of thing was why I did suggest targeting
24 > longterm. When the next longterm is announced then we could
25 > transition to it at our leisure (ie with plenty of testing while
26 > following point releases quickly on the previous longterm).
27 >
28 > So, moving between longterm branches would have a more typical Gentoo
29 > QA process. However, between point releases within a branch we would
30 > auto-stable releases, since it is unlikely that our own QA process is
31 > going to add any real value beyond what upstream already does.
32 >
33 > We also need to keep in mind just what our "promise of stability" even
34 > means. We're not a release-based distro, and we're NEVER going to
35 > offer an experience like RHEL or Debian Stable where the entirety of
36 > the package base is pinned and tested and we only do security
37 > backports. The kernel stable branches probably represent a lot more
38 > stability than we have almost anywhere else in the distro anyway.
39
40 We have had a lot of stable kernels with a not-so-stable btrfs. That's a
41 whole conversation in itself. There are pieces of the kernel that are in a,
42 shall we say, less stable state than others.
43
44 --
45 Mike Pagano
46 Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
47 Team Lead - Gentoo Sources
48 E-Mail : mpagano@g.o
49 GnuPG FP : EEE2 601D 0763 B60F 848C 9E14 3C33 C650 B576 E4E3
50 Public Key : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xB576E4E3&op=index

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Gentoo-sources - should we stable? Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>