21.08.2013 12:25, Tom Wijsman пишет: > > 3.10 is not a shiny new version, it has been in the Portage tree for 7 > weeks now (upstream release at 2013-06-30 22:13:42 (GMT)); so, that's > almost double the time you are suggesting. >
Current stabilization target(3.10.7) was added to tree: *gentoo-sources-3.10.7 (15 Aug 2013) 15 Aug 2013; Tom Wijsman <tom...@gentoo.org> +gentoo-sources-3.0.91.ebuild, +gentoo-sources-3.10.7.ebuild, +gentoo-sources-3.4.58.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.0.87.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.10.4.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.10.5-r1.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.10.6.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.4.54.ebuild: Version bumps 3.0.91, 3.4.58 and 3.10.7. Removed old. (skip) So it is definitely NOT 7 weeks(30 days period counting from time when ordinary user can install it through portage, thus - after hitting portage tree). You know, that we can lighten stabilization requirements of 30 days sometimes, but let's be honest. > Why should an external proprietary module that does not fix what is > broken for 7 weeks now block stabilization; it has never blocked > stabilization before, and I do not see a reason it should now... > >> And that fact, that you can successfully build and run kernel for a >> couple of hours, does not make it "good, well tested stable candidate" > > Having people run it for 7 weeks is not a couple of hours. > First of all, as i said early - it is NOT 7 weeks(thus - not a couple of hours either). And example with Nvidia drivers is not point of beginning a flamewar. We ARE a distro. Then, we should propose INTEGRATION of some kind. If some open-source modules with active upstreams, included in portage, do not support yet 3.10.* which will lead to unbootable system for some stable users - what you should say? "Oops, sorry, guys?" That's not how stable should work. We should either mark such modules as forever unstable(or even mask?), saying "guys, shit happens, do not use this in Gentoo, unless you are dead sure, that you can handle problems with updates" or slowing down stabilization(i am not talking about security stabilization right now). And as for security stabilization, if you say that version bump BRINGS security fixes, you KNOW what they are, and you do NOT file a security bug about old stable(and now - vulnerable!) kernel on Gentoo bugzilla, then current stabilization bug has no relation to security(as Gentoo Security team does not know about security problems), period. > Well, my thoughts is that the way we are doing it now we aren't going to > be able to deal with the lack of resources; so, a different approach is > necessary and I don't see how it is "old, but also breakable"... > I undestand your disturbance as Gentoo Kernel team member. But your proposal does not seem good to me. -- Best regards, Sergey Popov Gentoo developer Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead Gentoo Qt project lead Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
