> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 7:54 PM Gerald B. Cox <gbcox(a)bzb.us> wrote: > > I'm wondering, how do you actually want to define a "production > release" of a kernel module? > Does being part of an upstream kernel release (not in staging modules) > not qualify? > Because that's already the case, and has been for years. The > introduction of the btrfs module even predates all six currently > maintained LTS branches. > > Fabio Hey Fabio, No being part of an upstream kernel would be an important consideration for make a file system available for use (see F2FS) but default status requires a higher level of scrutiny. Many people appear to be going straight to the weeds on this proposal without backing up and seeing the big picture. It's the classic can't see the forest for the trees paradigm. Under Matt's leadership and repeating his words "we've worked hard to get Fedora a reputation of being problem-free and something that leads without being "bleeding edge". It's a tricky balance." I've posted my concerns and will wait until when and if there is a FESCo ticket to formally submit them. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
