Re: [stable] Future of the -longterm kernel releases (i.e. how we pick them).

[Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@canonical.com>]

On 08/14/2011 10:15 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> As I'm giving a talk about the -stable and -longterm kernels this week
> at LinuxCon in Vancouver, and I've been talking with a lot of different
> people about the future of the -longterm kernels, here's some thoughts
> as to what I'm considering:
>
>
> tl;dr;
> 	* -stable kernel releases stay the same
> 	* this proposal is how we pick the -longterm releases
> 	* -longterm kernels will be picked every year, and maintained
> 	  for 2 years before being dropped.
> 	* the same Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt will apply for
> 	  -longterm kernels, as before.
>
> History:
>
> 2.6.16 became a "longterm" kernel because my day job (at SUSE) picked
> the 2.6.16 kernel for its "enterprise" release and it made things a lot
> easier for me to keep working at applying bugfixes and other stable
> patches to it to make my job simpler (applying a known-good bunch of
> patches in one stable update was easier than a set of smaller patches
> that were only tested by a smaller group of people.)
>
> Seeing that this worked well, a cabal of developers got together at a
> few different Linux conferences and determined that based on their
> future distro release cycles, we could all aim for standardizing on the
> 2.6.32 kernel, saving us all time and energy in the long run.  We turned
> around and planted the proper seeds within the different organizations
> and low-and-behold, project managers figured that this was their idea
> and sold it to the rest of the groups and made it happen.  Right now all
> of the major "enterprise" and "stable" distro releases are based on the
> 2.6.32 kernel, making this trial a huge success.
>
> Last year, two different community members (Andi and Paul) asked me
> if they could maintain the 2.6.34 and 2.6.35 kernels as -longterm kernel
> releases as their companies needed this type of support.  I agreed, and
> they have done a great job at this.
>
> Andi reports that the 2.6.35 kernel is being used by a number of
> different distros, but they will be phased out as their support lifetime
> expires.  There are also a number of embedded users of the kernel as
> well as some individual ones.  So that -longterm kernel is having a lot
> of benefit for a wide range of users.
>
>
> Today:
>
> Now that 2.6.32 is over a year and a half, and the enterprise distros
> are off doing their thing with their multi-year upgrade cycles, there's
> no real need from the distros for a new longterm kernel release.  But it
> turns out that the distros are not the only user of the kernel, other
> groups and companies have been approaching me over the past year, asking
> how they could pick the next longterm kernel, or what the process is in
> determining this.
>
> To keep this all out in the open, let's figure out what to do here.
> Consumer devices have a 1-2 year lifespan, and want and need the
> experience of the kernel community maintaining their "base" kernel for
> them.  There is no real "enterprise" embedded distro out there from what
> I can see.  montaVista and WindRiver have some offerings in this area, but
> they are not that widely used and are usually more "deep embedded".
> There's also talk that the CELF group and Linaro are wanting to do
> something on a "longterm" basis, and are fishing around for how to
> properly handle this with the community to share the workload.  Android
> also is another huge player here, upgrading their kernel every major
> release, and they could use the support of a longterm kernel as well.
>
> Proposal:
>
> Here's a first cut at a proposal, let me know if you like it, hate it,
> would work for you and your company, or not at all:
>
> - a new -longterm kernel is picked every year.
> - a -longterm kernel is maintained for 2 years and then dropped.
> - -stable kernels keep the same schedule that they have been (dropping
>    the last one after a new release happens.)  These releases are best
>    for products that require new hardware updates (desktop distros,
>    community distros, fast-moving embedded distros (like Yocto)).
> - the normal -stable rules apply to these -longterm kernels as described
>    in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
>
> This means that there are 2 -longterm kernels being maintained at the
> same time, and one -stable kernel.  I'm volunteering to do this work, as
> it's pretty much what I'm doing today anyway, and I have all of the
> scripts and workflow down.
>
> Public Notifications:
>
> The current kernel.org site doesn't properly show what is and is not
> being maintained as a -stable and -longterm kernel.  I have a proposal
> for how to fix this involving 'git notes', I just need to sit down and
> do the work with the kernel.org admins to get this running properly.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> greg k-h
>

Speaking for Ubuntu, your proposal seems reasonable to me. We're going 
to have an LTS release every couple of years with the next one being 
12.04 (April 2012) so it would be good to coordinate on that kernel 
version choice (if possible).

The current non-LTS stable kernel releases have also been working well 
since by the time their natural support cycle elapses the Ubuntu 
community is already on to the next shiny release. Maintenance of those 
non-LTS kernels thereafter consists primarily of CVE backports.

rtg
-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner@canonical.com