On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:37 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:00 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote: >> >> We have a slight issue with the 3.12 kernel timing in that it is too >> >> late to push it into Fedora 20, but too far away from the Fedora 20 >> >> release to just ignore the 3.13 development cycle until we can push >> >> 3.12. As a result, we will be tracking 3.12 and stable updates for it in >> >> the rawhide-nodebug repository. This gives us a chance to keep it built >> >> and tested on all primary architectures, and make sure we are in good >> >> shape to push 3.12 out as an update as soon as possible. Once 3.12 can >> >> be pushed to releases, the rawhide-nodebug repository will return to >> >> doing non debug builds of rawhide, tracking Linus' tree upstream. I will >> >> let everyone know that is happening through the same channels with a >> >> couple of days notice. >> >> >> >> More information on the rawhide-nodebug repository can be found at: >> >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RawhideKernelNodebug >> > >> > 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 literally just screamed. >> >> The past 3 releases we've been pointedly reminded by QA that when >> doing fixes they should be scoped to as small as possible. So we've >> been trying really hard to do that during the Alpha and the Beta >> freezes. And now you want to ship a Beta (which gets the widest >> testing feedback of the pre-releases) with 3.11, and shove 3.12 in >> after that as the F20 release kernel? >> >> It could be the massive amount of email and meetings today addling my >> brain, but can you explain how that makes sense? > > Sorry, on re-reading that it could've been clearer =) > > By 'the ship has probably sailed now' I meant 'beta's almost done'. I > was trying to say we could probably have safely got it in before Beta > (though, admittedly, we didn't know we were going to slip two weeks...) > I wasn't really suggesting any change, just noting that 3.12's actually > fine for F20 atm if anyone feels like using it. I wasn't released upstream until this past Sunday. We could have gone with a late RC, but didn't think it was prudent. > The other funny thing is that the kernel is actually a relatively > reliable component, even though it's so vital, because a) it's usually > pretty damn obvious if anything terrible is wrong and b) it's Well, depending on the machine. That's the coverage part I'm worried about. Stuff like backlights, etc. > extensively and competently tested upstream. I'd actually be _less_ > concerned about changing the kernel post-beta than changing, say, I > dunno, NetworkManager (not to pick on NM, just an example, many things > are in the same boat). Still, I'm entirely fine with sticking with 3.11 > and happy the kernel team is considering stability/quality in making > that choice. OK, great. Much less confused, thanks. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
