From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C69C8995 for ; Mon, 5 May 2014 03:22:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4590C2026C for ; Mon, 5 May 2014 03:22:25 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 20:22:22 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Josh Boyer Message-ID: <20140505032222.GA12867@kroah.com> References: <53662254.9060100@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: lizf.kern@gmail.com, ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, May 04, 2014 at 08:54:31AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Li Zefan wrote: > > I've been dealing with stable kernels. There are some issues that I noticed > > and may be worth discussing. > > > > - Too many LTS kernels? > > > > 2.6.32 Willy Tarreau > > 3.2 Ben Huchings > > 3.4 Greg > > 3.10 Greg > > 3.12 Jiry Slaby > > > > Too many or not? Is it good or bad? One of the problem is the maintenance > > burden. For example, DaveM has to prepare stable patches for 5 stable > > kernels: 3.2, 3.4, 3.10, 3.12 and 3.14. > > To be fair, he doesn't have to. He chooses to, and it's great. > > > - Equip Greg with a sub-maintainer? > > > > I found 3.4.x lacked hundreds of fixes compared to 3.2.x. It's mainly > > because Ben has been manually backporting patches which don't apply > > cleanly, while Greg just doesn't have the time budget. Is it possible > > that we find a sub-maintainer to do this work? > > I think you've already shown exactly how we can handle that. It just > takes someone willing to do the work to dig in. Greg seemed very > pleased with the patches for 3.4 being sent to him, and I know he's > thanked me each time I send a report of what Fedora is carrying on top > of a stable release. Do we need something more formal that what > either of us have already done (or continue to do)? I am really happy with people helping me out, and have asked for help in the past. The 3.4 patch work that has been going on is a great example of that, and one that I am behind on in catching up with, due to travel, sorry. If people want to come up with other ways of helping me, I'm all for it :) thanks, greg k-h