On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:46:17 +0400 Sergey Popov <pinkb...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 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. That is 3.10.7, not 3.10; please look into how kernel releases work, minor releases are merely a small number of "backported" "known" fixes. What you propose, waiting 30 days for a minor; simply doesn't work when there are one to two minors a week, it puts us even more behind... > > 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). It is 7 weeks. > And example with Nvidia drivers is not point of beginning a flamewar. > We ARE a distro. Then, we should propose INTEGRATION of some kind. Well, by bringing it up on the ML it will become one; I'm simply not interested in this, decisions were taken a very long time ago anyway. > 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. That's how it has always worked, we do not see a need to change this. > 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). Tell them, I am interested if this will cause a change; I guess not... > 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. Actually, those are constantly filed by ago; please look at the picture first before you describe it, because you are drawing assumptions here. > > 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. There is not a proposal in that quote; and through this thread, I and others have made multiple proposals, I'm not sure what you refer to... -- With kind regards, Tom Wijsman (TomWij) Gentoo Developer E-mail address : tom...@gentoo.org GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
