On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:59:33PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:17:18AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:

> > 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 :)

A combination of release schedule and lack of desire to update kernels
mid release.

> > 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.)

Honestly at this point I'm not even sure how much of an issue it is with
the idea that people should update - as far as I can tell the main
problems are similar to the things keeping the enterprise distros from
upgrading, not wanting to introduce large change in something that's
already production.  I'm not sure we have any good answers there really
other than gradually getting through the technical debt with upstreaming.