3 ms·
I'll grant that changes leave the possibility of regressions, but that's true for minor patches too, so you already need a lab set up to catch those regressions
by yjftsjthsd-h 8mo ago
I'll grant that changes leave the possibility of regressions, but that's true for minor patches too, so you already need a lab set up to catch those regressions, and if you've got a lab set up to catch regressions and engineers who can fix them, then you might as well take the bigger upgrades too.
- b112 8mo agothen you might as well take the bigger upgrades too. No? A specific patch for a vulnerability is often tiny, and upstream LTS kernel devs handles much testing. You test for issues, but the scope is tiny. The amount of churn to a new kernel is massive. It's not even close to the same work. And why do it? Whatever for? New isn't a good reason. Frankly, as long as the userland and kernel are getting security updates, who cares? Understand, this is a lot of work alone.