Re: which kernel version for etch
* Frans Pop (firstname.lastname@example.org) [060727 16:41]:
> On Thursday 27 July 2006 16:19, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > What happened during the Sarge release was that we were aiming all
> > > the time to release ASAP. If you do that, you cannot really relax
> > > your freeze selectively.
> > Well, we're definitly not aiming to release all the time. :)
> I meant after the base freeze of course. The time from the base freeze
> (including the kernel) to the actual release was very (too?) long. I am
> talking about possibly deciding to relax the base freeze for a while if
> there are major issues that will delay the release anyway.
> Of course you'd have to be selective and test very carefully.
Well, the base freeze sounds (for me) mostly like: "We must be sure that
update doesn't drive us further away from release." If there is an
update e.g. in Mid of August where d-i is happy with, and the relevant
team is sure that it is stable enough (and possible upcoming issues will
be fixed soon enough), and it looks for us the same, I don't see an
issue to block it. Like said earlier, there is one thing that's
definitly worse than allowing an update in: Discussing about it a few
weeks, backporting some fixes back and finally accepting it later.
> Security updates are not a problem. We can handle that. I was talking
> about a possible update to a new upstream kernel minor release.
For that, I think there should be a some last date, which sounds to me
currently like something in October. Until that, as long as d-i is ok,
and people are carefull enough to not select a kernel "just because it's
newer", there is no reason to not go ahead. Freeze doesn't mean "no
updates possible", just "be way more careful now please".