Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 15 Aug 2011 07:21:42 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: Future of the -longterm kernel releases (i.e. how we pick them). |
| |
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:21:59AM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote: > rather than having a hard schedule (the first kernel released after > July 1 each year for example I know this is not the exact proposal), > I think that it would be better to pick the -longterm kernel a few > months after it has been released (3.4 is looking very good, the > normal minor driver fixes in -stable, but no fundamental regressions > have been reported, it's the new -longerm kernel for example) > > doing so doesn't give the predictability that some people will want > in knowing that their September release will always have a fresh new > -longerm kernel, but I think the result would be better -longterm > kernels. However, to get the information about how good the kernels > are, I think that the -stable timeframe would need to be extended to > give the kernels time to settle and gather reports. I would then > suggest scheduling that once a year you look at the last couple > -stable kernels and pick one of them rather than designating the new > -longterm kernel ahead of time.
Yes, that's a very good idea. I've seen problems in the past when distros have made a time-based decision to pick a kernel version and then the problems that this can cause if it happens that a subsystem really had issues for that release.
So yes, I'll take a look at the bug reports and how things are working out to pick the next -longterm. I'll also take into consideration any companies/major users that are going to be using that release as well, so it greatly behooves people to talk to me about their plans (hint, hint...)
> I hope my midnight rambling makes some sort of sense :-)
It did, thanks for the response.
greg k-h
| |