Please stabilize rt-sources-4.4.12_p19.
Please hold off for the time being. There's a special policy for kernel sources. As far as I understand, it doesn't make sense to stabilise all four versions available in the tree but only one. Actually, some developers suggested not stabilising kernel sources at all is the way forward. Karl, what is the rationale for theses stabibilisation request?s Is there a need for all four versions to be stable on amd64? Please read [1] and particularly the "Kernel" part. In case you don't know, Gentoo WG stable is a group in charge of coming up with stabilisation policies. [1]: https://download.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/wg-stable/main.pdf
(In reply to Patrice Clement from comment #1) > Please hold off for the time being. There's a special policy for kernel > sources. As far as I understand, it doesn't make sense to stabilise all four > versions available in the tree but only one. Actually, some developers > suggested not stabilising kernel sources at all is the way forward. > > Karl, what is the rationale for theses stabibilisation request?s Is there a > need for all four versions to be stable on amd64? Please read [1] and > particularly the "Kernel" part. > > In case you don't know, Gentoo WG stable is a group in charge of coming up > with stabilisation policies. > > [1]: https://download.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/wg-stable/main.pdf Okay, I see. I read the report. The rationale behind these stabilizations are: 1. these versions have been in tree for 30 days, 2. there are no bugs filed against these versions, 3. the upstream branches (at kernel.org) are considered longterm or stable. According to the report: "There should be kernel packages in stable version available to end users, in particular for sys-kernel/gentoo-sources and others referenced in the handbook." This makes stabilizing a good thing, right? I could just stabilize the 3.14 branch, since it is the oldest, but then I thought that people would like newer branches to be stable as well. If I ran a stable RT system, I would appreciate using 4.4 instead of 3.18; just because 4.4 is more recent. There could also be a point in keeping rt-sources in "stable-sync" with gentoo-sources, if people are dual booting between non-RT and RT. (I don't mind keeping rt-sources pure ~amd64, though, if that is more desirable.)
(In reply to Karl Lindén from comment #2) > (In reply to Patrice Clement from comment #1) > > Please hold off for the time being. There's a special policy for kernel > > sources. As far as I understand, it doesn't make sense to stabilise all four > > versions available in the tree but only one. Actually, some developers > > suggested not stabilising kernel sources at all is the way forward. > > > > Karl, what is the rationale for theses stabibilisation request?s Is there a > > need for all four versions to be stable on amd64? Please read [1] and > > particularly the "Kernel" part. > > > > In case you don't know, Gentoo WG stable is a group in charge of coming up > > with stabilisation policies. > > > > [1]: https://download.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/wg-stable/main.pdf > > Okay, I see. I read the report. > > The rationale behind these stabilizations are: > 1. these versions have been in tree for 30 days, > 2. there are no bugs filed against these versions, > 3. the upstream branches (at kernel.org) are considered longterm or stable. Does the rt-sources provide the same LTS guarantees as the vanilla kernel? > > According to the report: > "There should be kernel packages in stable version available to end users, > in particular for sys-kernel/gentoo-sources and others referenced in the > handbook." > This makes stabilizing a good thing, right? That is as a response to a proposal on not stabilizing kernels at all (but will add some verbosity to that to report to avoid confusion), rt-sources is not mentioned in handbook. Keep in mind that even vanilla-sources (and for that matter ck-sources) that likely have a broader userbase than rt-sources are not being stabilized Can you provide some figures on use? it seems to be a very particular environment > > (I don't mind keeping rt-sources pure ~amd64, though, if that is more > desirable.) That is consistent with other kernel sources like this
(In reply to Kristian Fiskerstrand from comment #3) > (In reply to Karl Lindén from comment #2) > > (In reply to Patrice Clement from comment #1) > > > Please hold off for the time being. There's a special policy for kernel > > > sources. As far as I understand, it doesn't make sense to stabilise all four > > > versions available in the tree but only one. Actually, some developers > > > suggested not stabilising kernel sources at all is the way forward. > > > > > > Karl, what is the rationale for theses stabibilisation request?s Is there a > > > need for all four versions to be stable on amd64? Please read [1] and > > > particularly the "Kernel" part. > > > > > > In case you don't know, Gentoo WG stable is a group in charge of coming up > > > with stabilisation policies. > > > > > > [1]: https://download.sumptuouscapital.com/gentoo/wg-stable/main.pdf > > > > Okay, I see. I read the report. > > > > The rationale behind these stabilizations are: > > 1. these versions have been in tree for 30 days, > > 2. there are no bugs filed against these versions, > > 3. the upstream branches (at kernel.org) are considered longterm or stable. > > Does the rt-sources provide the same LTS guarantees as the vanilla kernel? I guess not. I did not know about the vanilla LTS guarantees. > > > > According to the report: > > "There should be kernel packages in stable version available to end users, > > in particular for sys-kernel/gentoo-sources and others referenced in the > > handbook." > > This makes stabilizing a good thing, right? > > That is as a response to a proposal on not stabilizing kernels at all (but > will add some verbosity to that to report to avoid confusion), rt-sources is > not mentioned in handbook. Keep in mind that even vanilla-sources (and for > that matter ck-sources) that likely have a broader userbase than rt-sources > are not being stabilized > > Can you provide some figures on use? it seems to be a very particular > environment Okay, I see your point and I too think the rt-sources userbase is small. It's true that only very particular environments need RT. I cannot provide any figures, since I have none. > > > > (I don't mind keeping rt-sources pure ~amd64, though, if that is more > > desirable.) > > That is consistent with other kernel sources like this Well consistency is sensible, IMHO, so I'll close the stabilization bugs.
