Rich Freeman wrote: > >> Stable should mean something > > > > For users, stable means "older" in practice. Always did, always will. > > Don't change the meaning of stable, however, for those who find it useful.
This is a good point, but the original post suggested to me that actually every new release of v-s is preferable over every older one and perhaps even over g-s because there are more fixes. > Defining stable to mean "no testing at all except by the maintainer" > just makes the keyword meaningless I do think it's meaningless, though in a different way than you mean. But back on track: 1. "stable" in Gentoo means "Gentoo QA-approved" and it is the default 2. v-s will never be stable 3. g-s will always be behind v-s, the latter having more fixes It just seems to me that stable isn't a good default for the kernel because of 2 and 3, and as a result users end up having fewer fixes, since g-s is older. > The main distinction between stable and testing is fewer updates. If QA had infinite resources I suppose that wouldn't be the case. I think it's important to stick to the actual definition of stable meaning QA-approved. > If gentoo-sources isn't complying with our GLSA standards I think > that is worth bringing attention (and help) to, but I've yet to > hear that mentioned. Is that somehow implied by the original post, which states that g-s can be expected to always lack the newest fixes in v-s? I realize that this isn't such a simple matter, but I think it's worth consideration. To be clear: I am not suggesting to change the meaning of stable, I am suggesting that the latest available upstream kernel should perhaps be the default for Gentoo users. How to make that happen is less important, the idea to automatically mark v-s stable is only that, an idea. :) //Peter
