On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 02:27:22AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > - for other changes, we need to make sure they don't break the ABI as > happend with 2.6.16-7 when we disabled SECCOMP, and don't introduce > build failures as 2.6.16.6 did on alpha.
This needs built snapshots and automatic ABI checks.
> I suspect one day is not enough for every arch maintainer to check the
> changes and possibly veto the upload. What is a decent compromise here?
> Two days? Is this possible at all, considering we do not have more than
> one active developer for most architectures? Do we have the resources to
> check the next upload for all architectures within a day or two?
If someone take i386, I should be able to do another two or three
smaller arches on one of the openpower machines. But only if the
compiler is buildable cleanly.
> - do external modules built against a previous version still work
This is part of the ABI check.
> - do external modules still build
That is why I think, we should control which binary modules packages get
build and we can shedule rebuilds via our autobuilds without problems.
- Arch maintainer should review patches in the -stable queue.
The patch which broke alpha was posted as part of the regular -stable
update and noone objected. In fact, I don't found anything about it
until now on linux-kernel.
Bastian
--
Peace was the way.
-- Kirk, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate unknown
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
