Long maintenance kernel versions.

Long maintenance kernel versions.

[Geoffrey Said]

To whom it may concern.

I would like to put forward the following questions.  Hope that I am
not making a fool of myself!

How is the procedure by which a certain kernel version is declared as
a long maintenance version?
Is the version decided before or after the release of the stable kernel?
And where can I check for planned long term maintenance versions?

I am asking the above questions because we are migrating our Linux OS
to the 2.6.34 kernel and we have learned that this will not be
actively maintained and we are advised to switch to the 35 one.
Since a lot of effort has been put to migrate to the 2.6.34 kernel and
a lot of testing has been done, it is frustrating to hear the above
news.

>From our point of view it would be nice to declare a version log term
maintenance before or at least on release so that we can migrate
between long-term kernels.

Thanks and regards
--
Geoffrey Said
Software Developer
2X Software - http://www.2x.com
Developers of virtual computing software
2X VirtualDesktopServer - 2X ApplicationServer - 2X LoadBalancer - 2X
ThinClientServer

Tel: +356 2258 3800
Fax:+356 2137 7078

Re: Long maintenance kernel versions.

[Américo Wang]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:10:09AM +0200, Geoffrey Said wrote:
>To whom it may concern.
>
>I would like to put forward the following questions.  Hope that I am
>not making a fool of myself!
>
>How is the procedure by which a certain kernel version is declared as
>a long maintenance version?


This mainly depends on how many major Linux distributions rely on
that version of kernel, AFAIK.

>Is the version decided before or after the release of the stable kernel?

After.

>And where can I check for planned long term maintenance versions?
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel

Re: Long maintenance kernel versions.

[Geoffrey Said]

Thanks for the prompt reply,

but this puts us at a disadvantage as we will not know which kernel
will be long term supported when starting the development process.

Take our case for the 34 kernel.  I knew that SuSE were going to use
the 34 kernel in their 11.3 and since it was the latest we started
work on the integration.  Now after the work is almost over, we hear
that it will not be maintained anymore and we need to move to 35.  I
do not think that this is a good system for people like us which have
limited resources at their disposal.

Can I suggest that their is a road map and long term maintenance
kernels are ear marked before hand by the major Linux distributions?
This will enable us to wait and integrate kernels fully confident that
they will be long term supported.

Thanks
Geoffrey Said

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:10:09AM +0200, Geoffrey Said wrote:
>>To whom it may concern.
>>
>>I would like to put forward the following questions.  Hope that I am
>>not making a fool of myself!
>>
>>How is the procedure by which a certain kernel version is declared as
>>a long maintenance version?
>
>
> This mainly depends on how many major Linux distributions rely on
> that version of kernel, AFAIK.
>
>>Is the version decided before or after the release of the stable kernel?
>
> After.
>
>>And where can I check for planned long term maintenance versions?
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel
>
>



-- 
Geoffrey Said
Software Developer
2X Software - http://www.2x.com
Developers of virtual computing software
2X VirtualDesktopServer - 2X ApplicationServer - 2X LoadBalancer - 2X
ThinClientServer

Tel: +356 2258 3800
Fax:+356 2137 7078

Re: Long maintenance kernel versions.

[el es]

Geoffrey Said <geoffrey <at> 2x.com> writes:

1. You are top-posting.

2. To my non-developer naked eye it rather looks like - one of the developers
steps up and announces he's going to care for this particular kernel version,
and how long.

3. If it works and is adopted for your needs, why move ? Stick to it. Test new
kernels (apply your patches to them and test with your programs). Nobody knows
what you need, unless you tell them - or publish your patches. 

4. If you did that, you may publicly maintain the version you have selected for
as long as you need. That would be some way to GPL compliance too (IANAL). Move
to another kernel version only if it has a new feature that you actually need,
as bugfixes usually apply without need to change versions.

5. If more people like what you were doing, you may even become this stable
version maintainer.

Lukasz

Re: Long maintenance kernel versions.

[Américo Wang]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:42:50AM +0200, Geoffrey Said wrote:
>Thanks for the prompt reply,
>
>but this puts us at a disadvantage as we will not know which kernel
>will be long term supported when starting the development process.
>

That is true, unfortunately.


>Take our case for the 34 kernel.  I knew that SuSE were going to use
>the 34 kernel in their 11.3 and since it was the latest we started
>work on the integration.  Now after the work is almost over, we hear
>that it will not be maintained anymore and we need to move to 35.  I
>do not think that this is a good system for people like us which have
>limited resources at their disposal.
>

Why not just pick .32? And backport features from 34 to 32.
That should not be hard.


>Can I suggest that their is a road map and long term maintenance
>kernels are ear marked before hand by the major Linux distributions?
>This will enable us to wait and integrate kernels fully confident that
>they will be long term supported.
>

I think Greg is the right person to answer this question. :)

Thanks!

Re: Long maintenance kernel versions.

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:10:09AM +0200, Geoffrey Said wrote:
> To whom it may concern.
> 
> I would like to put forward the following questions.  Hope that I am
> not making a fool of myself!
> 
> How is the procedure by which a certain kernel version is declared as
> a long maintenance version?

There really isn't a set procedure yet.

> Is the version decided before or after the release of the stable kernel?

Sometimes after, sometimes before.

> And where can I check for planned long term maintenance versions?

You can ask.

Here's how the last 3 "long-term" releases came about:
  .16 - turned out that my employeer was using it for an enterprise
        kernel release, so it made my "day job" a lot easier to keep it
	going for a longer-than-normal period of time.  People liked
	this, so it kept going.
  .27 - Same as before.
  .32 - Now things got interesting.  Some kernel developers who "worked"
        for different distros got together and talked about picking a
	release that their distros could sync up on and become a
	long-term released kernel.  That ended up being the .32 kernel
	and we planned it ahead of time.  This resulted in all of the
	major distros relying on this kernel for their releases.

And that's it.  Pretty simple, but effective.

> I am asking the above questions because we are migrating our Linux OS
> to the 2.6.34 kernel and we have learned that this will not be
> actively maintained and we are advised to switch to the 35 one.
> Since a lot of effort has been put to migrate to the 2.6.34 kernel and
> a lot of testing has been done, it is frustrating to hear the above
> news.

You can always ask me ahead of time what is going on with this type of
thing, that's the best way.  I am easy to get ahold of if you have
questions like this.

> From our point of view it would be nice to declare a version log term
> maintenance before or at least on release so that we can migrate
> between long-term kernels.

For .32, I did announce this ahead of time, perhaps you missed that.

Hope this helps,

greg k-h

Re: Long maintenance kernel versions.

[Geoffrey Said]

Thanks for the info.  Unfortunately I missed the .32 announcement as I
am not always working on kernel integration.

Are there any future planned versions for long term maintenance, like
say the .36?

Thanks again.

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:10:09AM +0200, Geoffrey Said wrote:
>> To whom it may concern.
>>
>> I would like to put forward the following questions.  Hope that I am
>> not making a fool of myself!
>>
>> How is the procedure by which a certain kernel version is declared as
>> a long maintenance version?
>
> There really isn't a set procedure yet.
>
>> Is the version decided before or after the release of the stable kernel?
>
> Sometimes after, sometimes before.
>
>> And where can I check for planned long term maintenance versions?
>
> You can ask.
>
> Here's how the last 3 "long-term" releases came about:
>  .16 - turned out that my employeer was using it for an enterprise
>        kernel release, so it made my "day job" a lot easier to keep it
>        going for a longer-than-normal period of time.  People liked
>        this, so it kept going.
>  .27 - Same as before.
>  .32 - Now things got interesting.  Some kernel developers who "worked"
>        for different distros got together and talked about picking a
>        release that their distros could sync up on and become a
>        long-term released kernel.  That ended up being the .32 kernel
>        and we planned it ahead of time.  This resulted in all of the
>        major distros relying on this kernel for their releases.
>
> And that's it.  Pretty simple, but effective.
>
>> I am asking the above questions because we are migrating our Linux OS
>> to the 2.6.34 kernel and we have learned that this will not be
>> actively maintained and we are advised to switch to the 35 one.
>> Since a lot of effort has been put to migrate to the 2.6.34 kernel and
>> a lot of testing has been done, it is frustrating to hear the above
>> news.
>
> You can always ask me ahead of time what is going on with this type of
> thing, that's the best way.  I am easy to get ahold of if you have
> questions like this.
>
>> From our point of view it would be nice to declare a version log term
>> maintenance before or at least on release so that we can migrate
>> between long-term kernels.
>
> For .32, I did announce this ahead of time, perhaps you missed that.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> greg k-h
>



-- 
Geoffrey Said
Software Developer
2X Software - http://www.2x.com
Developers of virtual computing software
2X VirtualDesktopServer - 2X ApplicationServer - 2X LoadBalancer - 2X
ThinClientServer

Tel: +356 2258 3800
Fax:+356 2137 7078

Re: Long maintenance kernel versions.

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 03:30:52PM +0200, Geoffrey Said wrote:
> Thanks for the info.  Unfortunately I missed the .32 announcement as I
> am not always working on kernel integration.
> 
> Are there any future planned versions for long term maintenance, like
> say the .36?

Nope, I am planning on sticking with .32 for a while now.  Of course,
all of the kernel releases will get the normal 3-6 months of stable
support like always.

Hope this helps,

greg k-h