Re: Status of v4.9

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:11:58PM +0100, Mason wrote:
> On 16/01/2017 14:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 01:35:38PM +0100, Mason wrote:
> >
> >> On 16/01/2017 11:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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? :)
> >>
> >> I think it might be worthwhile mentioning somewhere that 4.9 is LTS.
> >> (My manager thought 4.4 was the latest.)
> > 
> > As you can see by my questions, I haven't come to that final conclusion
> > yet :)
> 
> Sorry, I must be missing something obvious :-)
> 
> What are the advantages of not listing 4.9 in the LTS list(*)
> until 4.11 is released?
> 
> (*) https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

It gives me the chance to not make 4.9 a LTS kernel if something shows
up that is a really big problem.  People have only been really testing
4.9 for a few weeks (really only 2 given the holidays.)  Let's see what
shakes out first, ok?

Has anyone run any benchmarks yet even?  Have you?

What is the advantage of me listing it now?  Is that going to cause
anyone to do any extra work today for helping to test this out that it
wouldn't have?

If you need to point a manager at something, point them at my blog post,
that is why I wrote it.  And test the heck out of it starting now!

thanks,

greg k-h