El mié, 21-08-2013 a las 10:57 +0200, Tom Wijsman escribió: > On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:22:39 +0200 > Pacho Ramos <pa...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Regarding the kernel... well, I don't think having a 3.8.x kernel as > > stable one is so old, what are current kernel versions in stable > > Fedora, OpenSuSE, Mageia... last time I checked we weren't so ahead > > on this (thanks to kernel team ;)) > > Don't compare apples and eggs. In other distros, heavy backporting of > fixes and so on happens; but on Gentoo, we instead want to keep our > genpatches minimal and therefore follow upstream stable more closely. If > we have a kernel version stable that is stable on other distros, it is > merely a sign that our stabilization currently is in a severe state... >
In that case, probably the way to go would be to provide different versions tagged as "stable": 1. The last one (would be 3.10.x now, I think) 2. The last one supporting that drivers used widely (nvidia comes to my mind now, no idea about ATI drivers status) But, does the kernel stabilization policy apply to the rest? Isn't it a "bit special case"? I mean, I would like to know what exact pieces are missing that people running testing in "production servers". I doubt it's because of "old toolchain". Isn't easier (and less risky) to report the bug and add the package to package.keywords instead of switching all to "testing". Maybe the question is why that people don't report that bugs. I guess it's because, some times, stabilization bugs are ignored for a long time by maintainer. Maybe the situation could be improved if some of us could review that bugs periodically and directly CC arches if maintainer doesn't disagree (we usually need to do that manually... not sure if could be done in a more "automatic" way, I guess Phajdan will have something for that as he does it for his automated reports)
