-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 02/01/15 03:17 PM, Mike Pagano wrote: > On Friday, January 02, 2015 03:11:22 PM Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 02/01/15 02:57 PM, Mike Pagano wrote: >>> I understand your point. Maybe waiting a few days to auto >>> stable makes sense, because less than 7 days later, a new >>> version with bug/security fixes is released. >>> >>> Isn't our current rate of stabilization "selling" a promise of >>> stability we can't stand behind? >>> >>> Mike >> >> Well to be perfectly honest, the current-stable 3.16 and 3.17 >> kernels for me at least have some rather unfortunate regressions >> over 3.15 and previous, so even with the stabilization we're >> achieving now I don't think we're living up to our "promise of >> stability" :) > > Exactly. It may give people a warm fuzzy feeling, but it's not > like other packages. >
I agree; and also with Rich. It might be a good idea to avoid stabilization of versions other than the LTS ones, ie let users that want anything newer than a (at this time of writing) 3.14 kernel use keywords to get them, and direct-to-stable gentoo-sources packages for 3.14, 3.12, 3.10 (probably with a 'genkernel kernel' test run on at least one arch first to make sure this doesn't break for the really lazy user). Then major dev work related to gentoo-sources stabilization is just in preparation for the next longterm release. Would that workflow still be too much for the current gentoo-sources maintainers? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iF4EAREIAAYFAlSm/gYACgkQ2ugaI38ACPC8KgEAp57inwfpkk7O3IewDlUOt3ga QL6vcX630xaismVyrCYBALUR2e+zTtvbxXMJLsJoXWxFGJCCeSvB6rV2yH85gJnW =pnlH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
