On Friday, January 02, 2015 04:05:42 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Mike Pagano <mpag...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > To summarize. > > > > In this instance, as this moment: > > > > 1. Only enter stable req bugs for 3.18 and 3.17. > > I assume this bit is just a transition since we don't want to > downgrade from 3.17/18 to 3.14, and that once we get the next longterm > we'll just follow that? If we kept doing delayed stablereqs on the > latest stable then users are going to tend to be behind on the fixes > just as they are today since they won't run longterm by default.
I would not "destabilize" 3.17 (or anything for that matter). So those people would not be affected. > > 2. Once they enter LTS, then auto stable going forward. > > 3. At this moment, auto stable 3.14, 3.12, 3.10 and 3.4. > > ++ > > > If this is what you're saying, this would make things much better for me > > and better for our users. > > > > Who needs to bless this? Council, Arch Teams, Rich0, God, my dog? > > Not that it means anything, but you have a +4 from me and my cats > (just be happy I don't let them post here - FYI they're easily bribed > with food). Good news, I wasn't sure if I should CC them or not. > I'd suggest that the kernel maintainers can "just do it" if there is > no objection after a few days. Escalation is for when there is > disagreement. That sounds like good advice. -- Mike Pagano Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project Team Lead - Gentoo Sources E-Mail : mpag...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : EEE2 601D 0763 B60F 848C 9E14 3C33 C650 B576 E4E3 Public Key : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xB576E4E3&op=index
