From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: "Levin, Alexander" To: Theodore Ts'o Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 09:19:57 -0400 Message-ID: <20160913131957.GA14672@sasha-lappy> References: <57C78BE9.30009@linaro.org> <20160902134711.movdpffcdcsx6kzv@thunk.org> <20160910120055.gr2cvad7efwci4f2@thunk.org> <20160912162714.GC27946@sirena.org.uk> <20160912171450.GB27349@kroah.com> <20160912234548.GL27946@sirena.org.uk> <20160913031437.d7aal75mnmqeqfce@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20160913031437.d7aal75mnmqeqfce@thunk.org> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Tsugikazu Shibata , Greg KH , "ltsi-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [LTSI-dev] [Stable kernel] feature backporting collaboration List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:14:37PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:45:48AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Part of the problem when the announcement was done after the release wa= s > > that there was a lot of trying to read the runes and guess what'll > > happen and when going on behind the scenes, if people would like to > > follow the LTS but also have product deadlines they can end up walking = a > > tightrope with their schedule and trying to predict LTS. What you did > > with v4.4 (announcing during the -rc cycle) addresses this, as does wha= t > > you've done this year pulling that even further forwards. =20 > >=20 > > If things don't work out with what you're doing with the preannouncemen= t > > it might be good to comment on that that and say you intend to do > > something different next year, but hopefully everything will be fine of > > course. >=20 > So Greg has already said that if people abuse the preannouncement by > trying to push obviously unready code into 4.9 to comply with > enterprise distributions requirements that features have to be > upstream first (although obviously the distributions would accept "bug > fix" patches), he reserved the right to retroactively declare that 4.8 > or 4.10 would be the LTS kernel. >=20 > So even this year, if people behave badly (which is the reason why the > announcement was done after the release -- people were trying to game > the system) it is not guaranteed that 4.9 will be the LTS kernel. If the problem is that people tried to push half-baked features maybe we sh= ould be addressing the lack of trust in those people rather than trying to = dance around it. If we can't trust maintainers to look for the good of the kernel rather for= the corporation they work in maybe they should be going through another la= yer of filtering before their stuff gets to Linus? --=20 Thanks, Sasha=