lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: -longterm kernels
    On Sat, May 07, 2011 at 04:55:03PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
    > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 08:25:01AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
    > > > BTW, Greg, perhaps -logterm releasing policy should be revised somehow.
    > > > Currently we have .32, .33, .34, .35 -longterm, what is kind a much.
    > >
    > > It's not "much" if you rely on that kernel version, right?
    >
    > Yes, but maybe would be better if they do not relay on some versions in
    > long term manner, and i.e. .33 users would use .32 and .34 users would
    > use .35 instead?

    You would think, but those kernels are being maintained for a reason
    that those people feel matter.

    > So perhaps having well defined kernel.org rule/policy about which kernel
    > version will be longterm updated, will allow distributions/users choose
    > the same kernel version for they long live project. What in consequence
    > will result that they together will have better tested and supported
    > kernel.

    Perhaps, but we've been doing just fine so far for over 5 years, right?
    :)

    > > Nor if you aren't doing the work, no one forces anyone to backport any
    > > patches to older kernels if they don't want to. The above patch was
    > > asked to be backported as the original submitter wanted it there, hence
    > > my asking for them to do it if they really wanted it.
    >
    > Sure. Actually I didn't want to complain about that. When I wrote
    > "less work", I rather meant "less work" for these who want to fix old
    > kernels bugs for whatever reason.
    >
    > > > If
    > > > I could suggest something, would be nice to have longterm chosen
    > > > versions predictable and constants i.e. one from every 3 kernel
    > > > releases, like .35, .38, .41 ... . That would make distributions, that
    > > > try to do release every half year very happy, because they will know
    > > > what kernel to choose, which will be widely supported and tested.
    > >
    > > The distros are the ones doing this -stable and -longterm work, so they
    > > very well know exactly what is going on.
    >
    > Hmm, I consider -stable rather as kernel.org project. People from
    > different distributions/communities cc patches to -stable, review them,
    > do backports ...
    >
    > > If they want to have a
    > > specific kernel version marked as "-longterm", then they do the work to
    > > do so.
    > >
    > > What happens in the future, with future releases, is always unknown, as
    > > hey, it's the future :)
    > >
    > > So I really fail to understand what you are asking for here.
    >
    > We have -stable rule that released kernel will be be updated until next
    > release - about 2 months.

    It's an informal rule, yes.

    > I would like to add rule about -longterm kernels. That it have to be one
    > form every 3 release, it will be updated about half a year - until next
    > -longterm (with possibility of longer updates). Or some similar rule.

    Nope, I'm not making such a rule, as you are trying to tell others what
    to do here. And I'm not going to do that.

    Also, I'm not going to promise to do such maintainership either, and
    last I checked, no distro is going to do that either.

    > That version should be good choice for distros and any other long live
    > project, and natural candidate for "real longterm" i.e. a few years
    > updated/supported kernel version.

    Again, distros know exactly what is going on here, they don't need
    anything new.

    sorry,

    greg k-h


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-07 17:45    [W:0.023 / U:90.180 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site