Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Stable trees and release time

[Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>]

On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 02:58:42PM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote:
>On 09/04/2018 02:33 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>Why not set your own release schedule and just take the latest stable
>>kernel at that point? So what if the .Z+1 kernel is out a day later? You
>>could just queue it up for your next release.
>>
>
>It's really rough on users to update that frequently. Fedora relies
>on users to give feedback to let us know to push an update and on
>older releases it can be hard to get feedback. We've sometimes had
>issues where multiple stable issues get delayed because they haven't
>gotten enough testing to be pushed. Admittedly that's a Fedora quirk
>but it's still an issue that the short rc and release window is not
>enough for many users to test and give feedback. When stable regressions
>are introduced it's very difficult to guide users to bisect.
>
>>This is exactly what would happen if you ask Greg to go on some sort of
>>a schedule - he'll just defer the .Z+1 commits to what would have been
>>the .Z+2 release, so you don't really win anything by moving to a
>>stricter schedule.
>
>I'd actually be okay with that. I'd rather focus on testing a known
>set of commits and getting those stable before pushing out.

My point is that Fedora can just skip a certain stable release if the
timing is off. If Greg releases .Z+1 but you just started testing .Z
just proceed with .Z and go with .Z+2 for your next release.

The set of commits in .Z and .Z+2 would be exactly the same if Greg is
asked to wait longer between releases.

--
Thanks,
Sasha