Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] call for agenda items, council meeting 8/13

[Mike Pagano]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 07:02:58AM -0400, Aaron Bauman wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 6:35:35 AM EDT Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> > On 08/01/2017 01:43 AM, Benda Xu wrote:
> > > Is it feasible to reduce the workload by only stablizing the longterm
> > > supported kernels?
> >
> > On 08/01/2017 12:30 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > I'd suggest taking it further and allowing auto-stabilization of all
> > > point releases whether they're security releases or not.
> >
> > Both of these are also in line with what has previously been [discussed
> > in wg-stable]:
> > --<---------------------------------------------------->--
> > \subsection{Kernel}
> > There should be kernel packages in stable visibility available to end
> > users for \pkg{sys-kernel/gentoo-sources} and other kernel variants
> > referenced in the installation instructions of the handbook, in order to
> > ease the configuration for new users.
> >
> > For Kernel stabilisation it is not possible for an arch tester to test
> > all possible configuration and hardware combinations. Other kernel
> > variants, that are expected for more advanced users to begin with,
> > likely does not make sense to stabilise given there the lack of
> > stability guarantees. Restricing the number of stabilised kernels hence
> > aids in reducing arch tester workload.
> >
> > As discussed previously\cite{kernel01,kernel02} a consistent
> > stabilisation policy on kernels is also important in order to ensure
> > that the latest point release is available to end-users in order to
> > ensure that security- and bugfixes are offered. In the experience of the
> > WG the kernel upstream has a strict policy on maintaining backwards
> > compatibility and not breaking userspace which has been proven over time.
> >
> > As such it makes sense to
> > \begin{itemize}
> >   \item Stabilise Long Term Stable (LTS) branches once they have been
> > determined to be so and tested downstream
> >   \item Have an automatic policy of stabilising new point releases
> > within the LTS
> >   \item non-LTS branches should not be stabilised
> > \end{itemize}
> >
> > --<---------------------------------------------------->--
> >
> > References:
> > [discussed in wg-stable]
> > https://download.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/wg-stable/main.pdf
>
> So will the council consider ratifying the WG stable suggestions for kernel
> releases?
>
> -Aaron

Thinking about this more..

I'm actually OK with what's written in the WG stable suggestion.  As
long as this does not imply that we will support every LTS labeled
kernel from upstream.  

Right now we have 8 different versions and back when I started in 2007
we had a policy to only support 2. 

I would still like the Kernel Project to decide which versions to
support and when to drop versions from the tree.  We're very flexible
and do respond to user's reasonable requests.

So, if the kernel section of the WG stable document can be voted on
without the need for the entire document to be blessed please do so.

Mike


-- 
Mike Pagano
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
Gentoo Sources - Member
E-Mail     : mpagano@g.o
GnuPG FP   : EEE2 601D 0763 B60F 848C  9E14 3C33 C650 B576 E4E3
Public Key : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xB576E4E3&op=index