From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB0D1389F6 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:15:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F2D521C066; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:15:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a81.g.dreamhost.com (caibbdcaaaaf.dreamhost.com [208.113.200.5]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA5921C040 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 12:14:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from homiemail-a81.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a81.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8B8A8076 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:14:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=libertytrek.org; h= message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= libertytrek.org; bh=yzlJq5ejSS0nUpmwQ5TN0PVDhrU=; b=AjSGq44ooBVD 2V13f1smKhPG/a59OKcvqI3o9pt0W57dCxuTC5/IpX9UFY0iwveFD65eyvp/75lY 1FSLzz/oXyo8/0O9VLkNebM86TvB9b89We5Il+1fcYR3cllG2kcoFn0jZ1H+ClRk ou7eeHK//dreCJwmVbNsgvcl6ytZ144= Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [159.63.145.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: tanstaafl@libertytrek.org) by homiemail-a81.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B9B19A8075 for ; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 04:14:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <511B83AD.6010200@libertytrek.org> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 07:14:37 -0500 From: Tanstaafl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: No server profile anymore??? References: <5117D813.9080505@gmail.com> <51180B47.4080907@gmail.com> <87sj51860w.fsf@ist.utl.pt> In-Reply-To: <87sj51860w.fsf@ist.utl.pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 46d55c06-eadf-438a-a9cb-cad84529015b X-Archives-Hash: 6b450d0053f0691b42a5b7d75a660bc9 On 2013-02-12 6:30 PM, (Nuno Silva) < wrote: > I have no doubts that devs have lots of work to do, but it's a rather > serious situation if the difference between unstable and stable land is > *not* used as an advantage when it comes to deal with situations like > this and udev's kernel requirements and network rules. > > I guess a good rule of thumb would be: if a stabilization/profile change > or introduced error message will require users to change their settings > by hand, change their kernel config to match new requirements in order > to have an usable system or to treat some packages/flags in a different > way, this should not go forward until a news item has been prepared to > notify users about it. Add "with an appropriate bake-in time *after* the news item is released to provide time for stable users to digest and understand the implications, and for unstable users to thrash out any issues before pushing it s-to stable." before the period at the end of that last sentence and I agree wholeheartedly. Question: Is there a well defined 'bake-in' time for things like this? If not, there should be.