On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Ian Stakenvicius <a...@gentoo.org> wrote: > That's not to say that gentoo-sources shouldn't follow the regular > overall stabilization policies, but focusing on the kernel as the > impetus for adjusting the stabilization policy or pointing out what's > wrong with the policy as a whole seems to be a bad use-case for this > discussion.
++ I track ~arch on a few packages and few get anywhere near the kernel in terms of update frequency. The ones that do are usually little niche utilities that cause little issue if they break (calibre, youtube-dl, etc). The kernel also benefits from an unusually robust quality system outside of Gentoo. I'm not saying that this is the only project that has strong quality upstream, but few packages that update so often do. That said, kernel updates are not without issue either. There are certainly have been changes in behavior that impact other system deps in the past. So if for whatever reason we do stabilize kernels more often we'll have to make sure the kernel team is extra vigilant for these kinds of changes and that they coordinate accordingly (the fact that ~arch doesn't break often suggests that this is likely already happening). Rich
