On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Aaron Griffin<[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Andreas Radke<[email protected]> wrote: >> i686 version is now also available. >> >> to the devs: please post your opinions where it should go after the >> testing period? do you want it in extra or as official alternative even >> in core? >> >> I'd prefer extra but would also like to see this kernel as a 2nd choice >> on our future iso snapshots. > > I agree it might be nice to have a choice, but I also think that if > we're going to make sure something is stable, we should try to enforce > some sort of signoff process, just to ensure it's all working ok >
agreed, it should go into core where we have to signoff. It would be funny to find out that our lts kernel is broken at some time... people expect something more 'stable' than the latest kernel so we have to make sure that it works fine. Ronald
