Looks to have no problems and adds fixes over -r1 (current stable). Thanks Reproducible: Always
which exactly reason to stabilize and old EOL?
As we still offer 3.6.x and we have 3.6.11-r1 marked as "stable", people will get that revision more easily than -r2: *gentoo-sources-3.2.40-r1 (17 Mar 2013) *gentoo-sources-3.7.10-r1 (17 Mar 2013) *gentoo-sources-3.8.3-r1 (17 Mar 2013) *gentoo-sources-3.6.11-r2 (17 Mar 2013) 17 Mar 2013; Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> +gentoo-sources-3.2.40-r1.ebuild, +gentoo-sources-3.6.11-r2.ebuild, +gentoo-sources-3.7.10-r1.ebuild, +gentoo-sources-3.8.3-r1.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.0.67.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.0.68.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.2.39.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.2.40.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.4.35.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.8.1.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.8.2.ebuild, -gentoo-sources-3.8.3.ebuild: Revision bumps for 3.2.40, 3.6.11, 3.7.10 and 3.8.3 and removal of intermediate versions: Revert memcg patches that prevent OOM with too many dirty pages which caused ZFS to flush dirty pages to deadlock, see bug #462066; in 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8. Backported fixes from 3.8 to 3.7 that affect some of our Gentoo users. Backported one of these patches to 3.2 as well since there was no 3.2 bump last week. Then, if 3.6.x kernels will be kept for more time, I think will be better to have the more "fixed" version marked as stable instead of a one with a known (and fixed in new revision) bug
(In reply to comment #2) > Then, if 3.6.x kernels will be kept for more time That's the question, do we want to keep this for more time? This version is close to dropping from the kernel.org homepage and hasn't changed since 2012-12-17 apart from the few patches we backported, I don't think we want to spend more time on backporting patches to it when people can just upgrade to the latest stable. Most bugs would boil down to the user trying a later kernel where their bug has a high enough chance to be fixed. Under these conditions I don't think we want to stabilize something that should be dropped from the Portage tree in a few weeks, especially since the stabilization of 3.8 is coming up very soon. On a side note: Stabilization in kernel land is hold back and limited to the end of stable branches, the arches have made clear there aren't resources enough to do much more than that; it would be lovely to have a stable kernel for every long term branch, if only we had the resources for that...
