[arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26-126.96.36.199-1
dpmcgee at gmail.com
Mon Dec 17 09:38:04 EST 2007
On Dec 17, 2007 5:06 AM, Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: arch-dev-public-bounces at archlinux.org [mailto:arch-dev-public-
> > bounces at archlinux.org] Namens Pierre Schmitz
> > Verzonden: maandag 17 december 2007 10:58
> > Aan: arch-dev-public at archlinux.org
> > Onderwerp: Re: [arch-dev-public] [signoff] kernel26-188.8.131.52-1
> > Am Montag, 17. Dezember 2007 08:43:53 schrieb Jan de Groot:
> > > Looking at FS#8948 and FS#8949, I don't think it's wise to put this
> > one
> > > into core.
> > This kernel is somehow broken. Are those alsa and cfs patches really
> > needed?
> > Afaik the vanilla kernel does not have those problems.
> I wonder where this latest cfs scheduler patch comes from. The header says 184.108.40.206 v24, the filename says 220.127.116.11 v24 and the upstream site only has 18.104.22.168 v24.
> Was this .11 patch we have some hacked up 22.214.171.124 patch to compile with .11?
Ugh, I retract my signoff. Alsa is broken here, I hadn't bothered to
check that, but once I saw an email about it on the arch-general list
I did and noticed I had the same problem.
1. My fault for signing off here too early- I shouldn't do that,
although see my next point.
2. I should be able to signoff on a minor version bump of a kernel
without too many concerns- however, we make huge changes in each one.
Do we REALLY need to bump the ALSA snapshot every single time? If it
causes issues like this, that is unacceptable. For the one person's
bug you might fix, you just broke every other users sound.
3. Instead of saying "plz signoff", we should post changelogs for
upgrades (or say version bump only). You did say "updated alsa", but
it sounds like cfs was updated too and that wasn't reported.
More information about the arch-dev-public