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 8D4B99C for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:17:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CF00136 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 08:17:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Jani Nikula To: Linus Torvalds , Doug Ledford In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 11:17:18 +0300 Message-ID: <87wpafsdbl.fsf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Dave Airlie , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Ingo Molnar , ksummit , David Miller Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] "Maintainer summit" invitation discussion List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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. 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. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center