From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:41790 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751078AbdAPKed (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 05:34:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:34:47 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Mason Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Status of v4.9 Message-ID: <20170116103447.GA26640@kroah.com> References: <39118017-9d4c-026d-5f37-e81b7e32591a@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <39118017-9d4c-026d-5f37-e81b7e32591a@free.fr> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 09:39:39AM +0100, Mason wrote: > Hello Greg, > > A few months ago, you stated that you were considering making v4.9 > the latest LTS version. > > http://kroah.com/log/blog/2016/09/06/4-dot-9-equals-equals-next-lts-kernel/ > > Neither https://www.kernel.org/ nor https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html > list 4.9 as an LTS version yet. > > Could you clear (some of) my confusion? It's a bit hard for a kernel to be "LTS" when it hasn't even had the chance to move out of the "normal" stable release process, right? :) Is there anything in your testing of 4.9 that you feel needs to be resolved before you would feel comfortable using it as a LTS kernel? How has it worked out for your platform and workload? Any warning flags that you feel would keep it from being a good LTS kernel? thanks, greg k-h