From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:59:33 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Jani Nikula Message-ID: <20170420105933.GA26134@kroah.com> References: <87wpafsdbl.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wpafsdbl.fsf@intel.com> Cc: ksummit , Dave Airlie , David Miller , Doug Ledford , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] "Maintainer summit" invitation discussion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:17:18AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Yeah, I don't think we can do much about distros that intentionally > > want to stay behind and backport. > > /me looks at https://www.kernel.org/ > > 1 stable, 8 longterm, and 1 eol'd longterm kernels. The oldest longterm > is based on a five years old release. That 5 year old kernel is due to Debian's looney release schedule, go take it up with them :) > I just think the multitude of longterm kernels are sending a message > that it's perfectly fine to stay behind. Don't get me wrong, I know why > they are there, but I still think in the past the focus on encouraging > to always use the latest stable kernel was stronger. And how do you suggest that we do that any more than we currently do? (i.e. I go around and talk to companies all the time about this issue, did a tour of Asia last month, and will be talking to some US-based companies next month.) As you say, you know why they are there, so why is that not a valid reason in itself? :) And you will note (although everyone seems to ignore it), that we are now only adding 1 new LTS kernel a year, and have been for the past few years, in order to cut down on the proliferation we had 3-4 years back. thanks, greg k-h