2.6.34.x longterm stable status

2.6.34.x longterm stable status

[Aaro Koskinen]

Hi,

There hasn't been 2.6.34.x stable tree releases for a
while. Also, in some mails you have mentioned EOLing this tree (e.g.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-doc&m=137393133817894&w=2). I have two questions
concerning this:

- Will there be any more releases, or is it assumed that all users have
already migrated to newer releases and 2.6.34.14 is the final one?

- Shouldn't the EOL status be mentioned in the www.kernel.org front page?

Thanks,

A.

Re: 2.6.34.x longterm stable status

[Paul Gortmaker]

[2.6.34.x longterm stable status] On 05/08/2013 (Mon 22:32) Aaro Koskinen wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> There hasn't been 2.6.34.x stable tree releases for a
> while. Also, in some mails you have mentioned EOLing this tree (e.g.
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-doc&m=137393133817894&w=2). I have two questions
> concerning this:
> 
> - Will there be any more releases, or is it assumed that all users have
> already migrated to newer releases and 2.6.34.14 is the final one?

The information is unchanged since the above.  I make no assumptions
about what "all users" have or have not done, but that said, I intend
to do one more 2.6.34.x as I have said elsewhere.

> 
> - Shouldn't the EOL status be mentioned in the www.kernel.org front page?

It will be marked EOL at kernel.org when it is EOL.  Those that care
about it being EOL would have seen the message about it becoming EOL in
the previous 2.6.34.x release annoucement.

Paul.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> A.

Re: 2.6.34.x longterm stable status

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 08/07/2013 09:07 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>
>> - Shouldn't the EOL status be mentioned in the www.kernel.org front page?
> 
> It will be marked EOL at kernel.org when it is EOL.  Those that care
> about it being EOL would have seen the message about it becoming EOL in
> the previous 2.6.34.x release annoucement.
> 

Maybe it is time to check in on this?

I just noticed that this is now over a year since the last 2.6.34
release, which lags the last 2.6.32 release by about five months.  I am
asking because someone just queried me privately about the status of
2.6.34.  I'm worrying if people think that security patches are still
being backported if in fact they aren't.

	-hpa

Re: 2.6.34.x longterm stable status

[Paul Gortmaker]

On 14-01-21 10:10 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 08/07/2013 09:07 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> - Shouldn't the EOL status be mentioned in the www.kernel.org front page?
>>
>> It will be marked EOL at kernel.org when it is EOL.  Those that care
>> about it being EOL would have seen the message about it becoming EOL in
>> the previous 2.6.34.x release annoucement.
>>
> 
> Maybe it is time to check in on this?

Yes, Konstantin just ping'd me recently on this, and the final update will
be out for review within a week;  with a focus on just clear CVE like
fixes and hence a relatively smaller queue size (i.e. nothing like 200
patches etc.)

If you think it best to mark it EOL in advance of that last release,
rather than waiting for it to appear, I don't see that as a problem.

Paul.
--

> 
> I just noticed that this is now over a year since the last 2.6.34
> release, which lags the last 2.6.32 release by about five months.  I am
> asking because someone just queried me privately about the status of
> 2.6.34.  I'm worrying if people think that security patches are still
> being backported if in fact they aren't.
> 
> 	-hpa
> 
> 

Re: 2.6.34.x longterm stable status

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 01/21/2014 07:58 AM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On 14-01-21 10:10 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 08/07/2013 09:07 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> - Shouldn't the EOL status be mentioned in the www.kernel.org front page?
>>>
>>> It will be marked EOL at kernel.org when it is EOL.  Those that care
>>> about it being EOL would have seen the message about it becoming EOL in
>>> the previous 2.6.34.x release annoucement.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it is time to check in on this?
> 
> Yes, Konstantin just ping'd me recently on this, and the final update will
> be out for review within a week;  with a focus on just clear CVE like
> fixes and hence a relatively smaller queue size (i.e. nothing like 200
> patches etc.)
> 
> If you think it best to mark it EOL in advance of that last release,
> rather than waiting for it to appear, I don't see that as a problem.
> 

No, if you are genuinely planning another release soon that's fine.

	-hpa