At Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:33:41 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 25.06.2014 11:29, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:02:25 +0200, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Hi,
This is pretty much history repeating, but I feel *very* disappointed with the way you treat Factory. Factory tumbles from one RC to another.
And while I try to get 3.15.1 in myself, you replace Kernel:HEAD with rc2? What's the thinking behind that? I guess it's not too far stretched to claim that no one is maintaining the kernel-source package in Factory. All packaging activities are done by brainless scripts ;(
IMO, a stable rolling release should take Kernel:stable instead. So it's a question again what is FACTORY.
Well, I don't mind what kernel is in factory as long as it works - if that's rc4 or rc7 or final doesn't matter to me. Neither as factory maintainer nor as factory user.
But I want it maintained and submitted when it makes sense. What bothers me is this "I commit to git and I'm done - shall random scripts handle the rest" mentality.
All Kernel:* repos _are_ maintained. Kernel:HEAD might be broken sometimes, but it's usually fixed quickly once when recognized. Not much different from the normal packages. I do wonder, however, whether you got actually a submission from Kernel:HEAD to FACTORY. That is, is Kernel:HEAD automatically submitted, or did you take it manually?
If that will go away in Kernel:stable, I'm fine with changing.
A similar breakage can happen on Kernel:stable, too, but maybe less likely because there are less activities there, and the code base is supposed to be stabler. The only drawback would be that we'll miss the integration test of the latest Linus kernel by this change. But, if FACTORY is aimed to be really stably usable, Kernel:stable is definitely a safer choice. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kernel+owner@opensuse.org