On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 10:15:36AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> Depends. Where are you seeing the requests and what for? I'm asking >> because I have seen a few, but the demand hasn't been what I would >> consider large. > > Users' list and on Stack Exchange. It wasn't like a gigantic flood of > hundreds, but "more than one around the same time" made me notice. If you have links, I'd be happy to read them. You can send them to me privately if you'd like. >> I'd rather not. This COPR isn't something we're going to maintain >> long term, and if it gets added to the wiki we'll forget to take it >> off and then people will be confused. > > *nod* To further clarify, the timing for 4.3 is "off". The upstream stable maintainer did not release 4.3.1 for what amounts to a significant delay from his usual pace. My best guess is that he was on a well deserved vacation. Once 4.3.1 came out, 4.3.2 followed a day later because of a pretty important bugfix, and 4.3.3 came out last evening but it has a known memory leak bug that will likely get fixed quickly. We've been tracking 4.3 in the stabilization branch since before 4.3.1. Because of the timing, we don't feel comfortable doing the rebase in F23 this week and then walking away for an extended period of time. Even if we left it in updates-testing, people will download it and use it and expect follow up. We're sticking with the devil we know in 4.2.y until after the new year for the stable Fedora releases. That is also the reason we aren't broadcasting the existence of the COPR very much. Most people simply want a newer kernel because it's new. The COPR is really just for cases where it's needed. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
