On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 07:33:38AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: >On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:43:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >I assume "forking" the kernel for jessie+½ as done for etch-and-half is >> >the plan already? (forking as in using a new source package…) >> God, no - really *not* that way at all. I'm thinking of using the >> kernel in backports at the time we do a build/test/release >> cycle. People using this and updating will end up following bpo for a >> while until the Stretch release. > >ah, ok. > >then I'd like to suggest *not* to call it jessie+half, as we have used >that term already (for etch+half) and there we had a frozen/stable kernel, >not a moving target like bpo.
ACK - I'm not wedded to the name in the slightest. It's more a proposal of what we're going to do. >maybe "jessie+bpo-installer" would be a better fit? Maybe that fits, but it's horrid name. >and maybe, we could also do such releases more regularily (if this works >out and turns out not to be that much extra work…) *possibly*, yes. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten." -- Malcolm Ray
