| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Peter Stuge <peter@×××××.se> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> To be clear: I am not suggesting to change the meaning of stable, |
| 5 |
> I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should |
| 6 |
> perhaps be the default for Gentoo users. How to make that happen |
| 7 |
> is less important, the idea to automatically mark v-s stable is |
| 8 |
> only that, an idea. :) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> //Peter |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> You seem to be ignoring the regressions that often come with new kernel |
| 14 |
releases, the very common breakage caused in stable "genkernel all", and |
| 15 |
other various complications. Unleashing brand new kernel.org sources on |
| 16 |
stable users as soon as they are released seems crazy to me. These |
| 17 |
releases surely bring more than just "the newest fixes". |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Going straight to stable is (in my eyes) so far from being a viable option, |
| 20 |
that "always unstable, allow unstable if you're ok with the risk/benefit |
| 21 |
tradeoff" seems like the best bet, to me. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-Ben |
Archives