On 05.07.2008 17:22, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 05.07.2008 15:54, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
- a karama of "+3" in bodhi seems not enough for a auto-move from testing
to
stable (or even worse: straight to stable if enough people tested the
kernel
and gave their +1 after the update got filed in bodhi but *before* it
actually hit fedora-testing) if there are no other pressing issues (like
security fixes). The kernel is a to complex beast; more then 3 people
should
be needed to give a +1. And a bit of time needs to pass to give enough
people the opportunity to install, test and report problems with new
kernels.
Well the problem is not the patches that are being shipped but bodhi.
Yes and no. The patches are quite big and carry a additional risk. We don't
take such risk in other areas (Sound, LAN, Storage -- there for similar
reasons it might make sense) -- so why should we take that risk for WLAN
drivers in stable releases (might be something else for rawhide now and
then)?
There was a reasons until now (upstream sucked until a few months ago), but
we IMHO have to stop that sooner or later (otherwise Alsa maintainers, Jeff
G./Alan Cox might want to do the same and then it really becomes
problematic). As the most important WLAN bits are in the kernel now with
2.6.26 it's IMHO a good time to think about slowing down a bit. Of cause we
can still cherry picking some improvements if we want.
Well if the upstream maintainer sees a need for this why not? (given
the changes go to testing first)
In rawhide -- sure, let them do that as long as we are not close to a
release. That's what rawhide is for.
But kernel updates for a stable/release Fedora version should IMHO
normally not contain big and frequently changing/updated development
patchsets.
Or, to abuse some words from someone else in the discussions around
separately packaged kernel modules for Fedora: "If they [the patches in
this case] are not good enough to get applied upstream why should they
be good enough for us?" There is a reason for the short merge window and
the longer stabilization phase upstream.
Cu
knurd
_______________________________________________
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-kernel-list
