| 1 |
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 11:30:56 -0400 |
| 2 |
Mike Pagano <mpagano@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> We hammered out a policy sometime in the past that if you add a new |
| 5 |
> version for the reasons you did and remove the stable ones (that have |
| 6 |
> security issues) you can do an auto stable. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I have not gone through the commit log to see what happened but here |
| 9 |
> is an easy example. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> You know the stable version 3.8.4 has a sec bug. |
| 12 |
> You have a minor point release that fixes this. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> You remove 3.8.4, add 3.8.5 and auto stable for any arch that had a |
| 15 |
> stable keyword for 3.8.4. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I know this thread is about vanilla-sources. But in the context of |
| 18 |
gentoo-sources this would mean we could do a revision bump with |
| 19 |
the security patch and auto stable it? That makes a lot of sense. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Haven't thought about that, I'm going to do that right now to cover the |
| 22 |
minor arches that do not have a newer major release stabilized yet. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> This should be written down and if it's not that's probably on me as I |
| 25 |
> am the only kernel person (i think) that was involved in the decision |
| 26 |
> and is still around. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Yes, I was unaware of this approach, discussion and decision; I'm not |
| 29 |
sure if any other kernel person is still active. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
With kind regards, |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 35 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 38 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 39 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives