On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:30:37 -0800, >> Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> >>> FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be >>> much of a problem to have 3.12 in F20 at release time. It's what I've >>> been running on my F20 box here for the last several weeks anyway, and >>> based on my testing it's unlikely to cause us any particular problems. >> >> >> I asked about this last week and the kernel devs didn't feel comfortable >> about switching after beta or trying to get a freeze exception to get 3.12 >> into beta. > > Right. Also, at this point I'm not sure what 3.12 actually buys us > over a known 3.11. > >> I run rawhide nodebug kernels on three machines and am not seeing any >> regressions relative to 3.11. > > Are you running any ARM machines? My understanding is that our F20 > kernel has patches that enable important ARM stuff that isn't in > rawhide (3.12) because it was conflicting with the churn. So that > would need to be added and tested, given ARM is primary on F20. The main issue here is BBBlack rebasing which I've started to do (not sure if kyle has looked at this at all) but as it stands the BBB on 3.11 has issues with USB/Display anyway so from this PoV it shouldn't be hard to get us to as good as or better experience with 3.12 on the BBBlack. The advantage of moving to 3.12 from the ARM PoV would be a much better and expanded experience from the i.MX PoV which covers Utilite and Wandboard which are some of our best working devices at the moment and it would improve that experience greatly. >From my PoV I'm certainly not opposed to moving to 3.12 from the ARM side of things. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
