On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 14:36:11 +0100
"Eric F. GARIOUD" <eric-f.garioud@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> On Thursday 21 March 2013 13:22:35 Tom Wijsman wrote:
> 
> > As to address your question, it doesn't come down to intention but
> > rather to manpower. 
> 
> I appreciate this.
> However, when things go down to a problem of manpower, the very first 
> initiative common sense commands is to avoid wasting it.
> And the first way I know to avoid wasting manpower is :
> - displaying intentions !
> 
> I have asked here, in 3.4.9 times, for the intentions of the
> gentoo-sources regarding the 3.4 LTS and was answered that it would
> not be followed.

Just like in last mail, I guess this was due to the lack of manpower;
now that I joined we have time to do the 3.x LTS branches (lately I
have been doing them all since I don't maintain that much packages
yet; maybe mpagano is taking a time off, not sure but he seems busy...).

> Fair enough, because I wanted the ck-sources to follow it, we made
> the job of reviewing all upstream's patches from 3.4.9 up to 3.4.18
> and from there up to 3.4.23... and then discovered the gentoo-sources
> catching up from 3.4.9 to 3.4.24.

Times have changed, bumps for everything in 3.x we are following. :)

> Of course I do not blame anybody for this, after all, each to his own.
> However, the result of this is that we (as GS+CK) have almost
> certainly achieved a great part of the dirty job twice !

Okay, I see where you are getting at; seems like this is also due to
the nature of the kernel being split over multiple packages instead of
using a single package with multiple USE flags. I've been wondering if
there would be a benefit changing this model to ensure there is no lost
manpower (regardless of the actual patches, we're also duplicating the
kernel bumps / stabilization / ... as well).

> Hence my first question regarding the gentoo-sources project's
> intentions regarding the 3.6 and 3.7 branches. 

We won't touch them apart from important bug fixes and root privilege
escalation security issues; but if you are willing to fix all the
security bugs, we could make them available in genpatches to benefit
everyone. Combining multiple security bug fixes together in each
genpatch release then could make it accessible in revision bumps
across all sources in and out of the tree.

> Regards,
> 
> Eric
> 


With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D