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 ESMTPS id 772A4BD0 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:22:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9D241A6 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:22:29 +0000 (UTC) From: Jani Nikula To: Greg Kroah-Hartman In-Reply-To: <20170420105933.GA26134@kroah.com> References: <87wpafsdbl.fsf@intel.com> <20170420105933.GA26134@kroah.com> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 15:22:26 +0300 Message-ID: <87fuh3s1z1.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: ksummit , Dave Airlie , David Miller , Doug Ledford , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] "Maintainer summit" invitation discussion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:17:18AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > Yeah, I don't think we can do much about distros that intentionally >> > want to stay behind and backport. >> >> /me looks at https://www.kernel.org/ >> >> 1 stable, 8 longterm, and 1 eol'd longterm kernels. The oldest longterm >> is based on a five years old release. > > That 5 year old kernel is due to Debian's looney release schedule, go > take it up with them :) > >> I just think the multitude of longterm kernels are sending a message >> that it's perfectly fine to stay behind. Don't get me wrong, I know why >> they are there, but I still think in the past the focus on encouraging >> to always use the latest stable kernel was stronger. > > And how do you suggest that we do that any more than we currently do? > (i.e. I go around and talk to companies all the time about this issue, > did a tour of Asia last month, and will be talking to some US-based > companies next month.) > > As you say, you know why they are there, so why is that not a valid > reason in itself? :) Well, I'm just saying it's a double edged sword. Accommodating the longterms says it's okay to rely on them, but then you go around the world telling people they shouldn't do that anyway. It's a tradeoff. Or maybe you just like traveling? ;) > And you will note (although everyone seems to ignore it), that we are > now only adding 1 new LTS kernel a year, and have been for the past few > years, in order to cut down on the proliferation we had 3-4 years back. I think that's a step in the right direction. How about having a shorter lifetime too, despite "longterm"? Of course that would conflict with what the distros are doing, and this may not be a popular view, but I'm wondering if it's overall a net positive to give an appearance of kernel.org endorsing all these ancient kernels? BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center