Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 7 May 2011 08:40:40 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: -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
| |