From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753859Ab1HOOXo (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:23:44 -0400 Received: from out4.smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:33400 "EHLO out4.smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753437Ab1HOOXk (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 10:23:40 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: Ga6LyyhjV1rOwG9mah7KjC40d6hgPeJHQKcbnCIQkr6e 1313418219 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 07:21:42 -0700 From: Greg KH To: david@lang.hm Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, stable-review@kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: Future of the -longterm kernel releases (i.e. how we pick them). Message-ID: <20110815142142.GC11358@kroah.com> References: <20110815041524.GA7578@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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