Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo-sources - should we stable?

[Ian Stakenvicius]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 02/01/15 03:17 PM, Mike Pagano wrote:
> On Friday, January 02, 2015 03:11:22 PM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
>> On 02/01/15 02:57 PM, Mike Pagano wrote:
>>> I understand your point. Maybe waiting a few days to auto
>>> stable makes sense, because less than 7 days later, a new
>>> version with bug/security fixes is released.
>>>
>>> Isn't our current rate of stabilization "selling" a promise of
>>> stability we can't stand behind?
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> Well to be perfectly honest, the current-stable 3.16 and 3.17
>> kernels for me at least have some rather unfortunate regressions
>> over 3.15 and previous, so even with the stabilization we're
>> achieving now I don't think we're living up to our "promise of
>> stability" :)
>
> Exactly.  It may give people a warm fuzzy feeling, but it's not
> like other packages.
>

I agree; and also with Rich.

It might be a good idea to avoid stabilization of versions other than
the LTS ones, ie let users that want anything newer than a (at this
time of writing) 3.14 kernel use keywords to get them, and
direct-to-stable gentoo-sources packages for 3.14, 3.12, 3.10
(probably with a 'genkernel kernel' test run on at least one arch
first to make sure this doesn't break for the really lazy user).  Then
major dev work related to gentoo-sources stabilization is just in
preparation for the next longterm release.

Would that workflow still be too much for the current gentoo-sources
maintainers?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlSm/gYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPC8KgEAp57inwfpkk7O3IewDlUOt3ga
QL6vcX630xaismVyrCYBALUR2e+zTtvbxXMJLsJoXWxFGJCCeSvB6rV2yH85gJnW
=pnlH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----