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

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:21:59AM -0700, david@lang.hm wrote:
> rather than having a hard schedule (the first kernel released after
> July 1 each year for example I know this is not the exact proposal),
> I think that it would be better to pick the -longterm kernel a few
> months after it has been released (3.4 is looking very good, the
> normal minor driver fixes in -stable, but no fundamental regressions
> have been reported, it's the new -longerm kernel for example)
> 
> doing so doesn't give the predictability that some people will want
> in knowing that their September release will always have a fresh new
> -longerm kernel, but I think the result would be better -longterm
> kernels. However, to get the information about how good the kernels
> are, I think that the -stable timeframe would need to be extended to
> give the kernels time to settle and gather reports. I would then
> suggest scheduling that once a year you look at the last couple
> -stable kernels and pick one of them rather than designating the new
> -longterm kernel ahead of time.

Yes, that's a very good idea.  I've seen problems in the past when
distros have made a time-based decision to pick a kernel version and
then the problems that this can cause if it happens that a subsystem
really had issues for that release.

So yes, I'll take a look at the bug reports and how things are working
out to pick the next -longterm.  I'll also take into consideration any
companies/major users that are going to be using that release as well,
so it greatly behooves people to talk to me about their plans (hint,
hint...)

> I hope my midnight rambling makes some sort of sense :-)

It did, thanks for the response.

greg k-h