Re: bits from the release team
On 1/3/06, Sven Luther <email@example.com> wrote:
> Why do you put the kernel together with the essential toolchain freeze, it
> should be together with the rest of base, i believe.
> We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time with
> this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2 month.
> So, we will be asking the question about the upgradability of the kernel later
> during this release process, and i believe that it is not something which
> should be ignored. Already you are considering upgrading the sarge kernel
> which has some trouble booting on a rather non-negligible quantity of
> hardware, so having a two version outdated kernel at release time is not nice.
I really don't think that having a four months out-dated kernel is
that bad. What is really important is to have stable kernels. Past
experience with the modified 2.6 release policy has shown that some
2.6 kernels are pretty stable and some others are quite crappy.
So, I'd say it's better to give some time to be sure that the kernel
that is shipping with Debian's stable distribution is really a stable
kernel, and not a crappy one. I don't think you can tell the
difference before this version of the kernel reaches a big number of
people, and therefore, it does need time (frozen, in testing).
However, if while preparing the release, the frozen kernel would show
up as being a crappy one, the release managers might allow for a new
kernel to enter testing. But this is only a hypothetical case, and I
expect it would be carefully evaluated before it actually happened.