Re: [gentoo-dev] Vanilla sources stabilization policy change

[Peter Stuge <peter@stuge.se>]

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