On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 02:27:22AM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > - for other changes, we need to make sure they don't break the ABI as > happend with 2.6.16-7 when we disabled SECCOMP, and don't introduce > build failures as 2.6.16.6 did on alpha. This needs built snapshots and automatic ABI checks. > I suspect one day is not enough for every arch maintainer to check the > changes and possibly veto the upload. What is a decent compromise here? > Two days? Is this possible at all, considering we do not have more than > one active developer for most architectures? Do we have the resources to > check the next upload for all architectures within a day or two? If someone take i386, I should be able to do another two or three smaller arches on one of the openpower machines. But only if the compiler is buildable cleanly. > - do external modules built against a previous version still work This is part of the ABI check. > - do external modules still build That is why I think, we should control which binary modules packages get build and we can shedule rebuilds via our autobuilds without problems. - Arch maintainer should review patches in the -stable queue. The patch which broke alpha was posted as part of the regular -stable update and noone objected. In fact, I don't found anything about it until now on linux-kernel. Bastian -- Peace was the way. -- Kirk, "The City on the Edge of Forever", stardate unknown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature