Re: [stable] [0/9] review

From: Ozan ÃaÄlayan
Date: Sun Jan 17 2010 - 11:30:45 EST

Greg KH wrote:

>> Personally I really don't like the idea of "all users should really be
>> moving to .3x" which is true for individual bleeding edge users which
>> compiles and uses their own kernel but there are still distributions
>> around (as well as the one that I'm trying to maintain the kernel
>> part) which ships 2.6.31.
> Distros can easily add additional patches to their kernel if they wish
> to keep the .31 kernel alive longer. I am only one person, and can not
> maintain 3 different kernel trees and remain sane.

Yep I know, that's what I'm doing, I just want to make people aware of the problems. I somehow feel a little
bit guilty if I don't report some problems that I've spotted as downstream.

You're totally right, the maintenance of 1 kernel tree would be enough messy and time-consuming, I can't
even think about 3 trees..

> You aren't the first to think that .31 would be a "long term" kernel. I
> have never stated this, and I wonder where that rumor came from.

Well I thought that .29 would be that lucky one, and .30, and .31. Not something that I
heard from anyone :)

> Yes, I will be maintaining the .32 kernel in a "long-term" manner. I
> have mentioned it before to a number of people, but don't know if I've
> done any "official" announcement. Things get lost in the lkml volume at
> times.

That's nice to hear about that.

> Ok, to help you solve this issue, I will be willing to do one more .31
> release after this one. Just send me the git commit ids of the patches
> you wish for me to include, and I will do so.
> Sound good?

No that's not necessary at all. I didn't write that to push you for another release.
I just wanted to share my ideas and got reasonable answers from you.

Thanks again.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at