From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 17:27:14 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Theodore Ts'o Message-ID: <20160912162714.GC27946@sirena.org.uk> References: <57C78BE9.30009@linaro.org> <20160902134711.movdpffcdcsx6kzv@thunk.org> <20160910120055.gr2cvad7efwci4f2@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+b2GFy/wpzNn/yIF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160910120055.gr2cvad7efwci4f2@thunk.org> Cc: Tsugikazu Shibata , "ltsi-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , Greg KH Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [LTSI-dev] [Stable kernel] feature backporting collaboration List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --+b2GFy/wpzNn/yIF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 08:00:55AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 07:20:37AM +0000, Tsugikazu Shibata wrote: > > Finally, A request to the community from LTSI's stand point is: > > We want to have some process to be expected; How or about when=20 > > LTS would be released. So that companies can easier to create their pla= n=20 > > to use LTS and that will cause more user can use stable and secure > > kernel. > So the "about when" has been pretty easy to predict for quite a while > now. And the process has also been roughly the same for a while; IIRC > the announcement came at the kernel summit, again with the caveat that No, it was more usually sometime in late spring or summer (IIRC LinuxCon Japan had some announcements). > it might be subject to change if people abused the preannouncement. > And even when it wasn't preannounced because of the historic abuse > patterns, people who had observed past practices could generally > guestimate the LTS candidate to within +/- a release. > If that is not enough of a process, could you please state what you > think would be more helpful? Personally I think what we've got at the minute with the preannouncements is fairly good, though it might help if it were a bit more explicit when announcements would be made - the change to preannouncements at a less awkward point in the release cycle has helped for the users I talk to but there was always a very awkward period where people were looking for an announcement but no information to base things on. --+b2GFy/wpzNn/yIF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJX1tdgAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQ9OkH/Ag92SDjRdlODtzpRmOjsXmr rQECqCGkABofFYBfDybSRhld+sMlsEhdmcxdsO/0ofdlObDCgAenG1dz2IFpwDre X0VshHqv1S6yAF2T/DbFEYgw3VUEM0X5srOWTe9itK4Q2w3E5LyIArOgpAtrT9Zp lXQt3jvKQg4NCPGQMaILZ0kJg1dfbJk4/I8hHmTv/ft8Xz/N8vtWLmuJWVOPgLX6 iCELSCgrusma5XCnFkz+JONLunOTdA+ckCWQz8MLZSnWyK1YabYSBo0eNRBYDyRT y8LkMc0chk6FPsoK/Fa4kgDDfKlDnJyoSnsiauX/yVcpzWsYIdHFFb6M24/Ihts= =p/t4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+b2GFy/wpzNn/yIF--