>>>>> "IU" == Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> writes:
IU> AFAIK, that wasn't officially supported. What does "official" actually mean, and what relevance does that have? Adrian Bunk didn't maintain 2.6.16 in a way that's much different than the current long term support kernels are supported. And even before that, when kernel development worked in a rather different way, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 were all maintained as "stable releases" long after development had moved on to newer things. The concept of "stable" Linux kernels maintained for years predates 2011 by quite some time. In any case, that hardly matters because the context that's important is how Fedora viewed those kernels in previous discussions about longer Fedora release lifecycles. I don't think there were any objections to them based on some notion of being "official". Linux itself was a lot less "official" in general back then. We knew that there were kernel releases which could be used for the duration of a longer lifecycle but that it wouldn't really help with the fundamental issues. That statement applies today as much as it did at the BU FUDCon in 2007. - J< _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
