Hi Sebastian, On Thu, 2026-08-13 at 15:41 +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2026-08-13 14:24:39 [+0200], John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > > Hi Sebastian, > Hi Adrian, > > > > The idea is to revert the (two) commit(s). > > > > But that imply that anyone concerned would have to respond in a timely > > manner > > which is not really something I would expect. > > What do you mean by respond in a timely manner?
Well, the problem of many kernel maintainers is that they somehow assume that 99% of the Linux users are present on the Linux kernel mailing list and reading what's happening there. Then a kernel developers send a patch introducing a major breaking change, ask for feedback and then just implement the change because they didn't get any feedback. However, most users are not reading the LKML, so introducing such breaking changes in steps hoping for feedback will not work. My recommendation is therefore to keep everything in a working state until the next LTS release, then drop everything at once. This way users know that they can stick for the latest LTS release for the time being to continue to use such a major feature. > > My suggestion would be to leave the complete x32 support fully intact until > > the next LTS release so that anyone using that LTS release will know that > > x32 > > will be fully working. > > Given the media covered it well, it might work. Most users probably don't even read the media coverage and only realize that a feature is gone when they try to upgrade their machines and realize the feature has suddenly vanished. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
