On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 16:53 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Today the backports project provides support to backport down to > 2.6.24 for some subsystems. While this is good for users in practice > for development and maintenance this is quite a bit of overhead. Apart > from older kernels there are also gaps in between stable releases that > are not supported. For example 3.8 and 3.4 are supported but anything > in between is not (3.5, 3.6, 3.7), but we still do support them on the > backports project. At times this may mean a stable fix may get > propagated onto a the linux-3.4.y branch but obviously not the the > linux-3.5.y branch. If backporting expressing this becomes a bit > complex and we have dealt with it. In short, its a pain. > > I'd like to see what folks thought if we went ahead and *only* > supported kernels listed on kernel.org as supported. This would help > with the Linux kernel maintainer effort by also persuading users to > upgrade to stable releases as well as educating around this. > > If v3.10 backported releases are too soon to do this I propose we > seriously consider it for v3.11 releases. Any thoughts?
I'm sure I'd still have to support other kernels random customers might be on (customers, they don't always do the smart thing ;-) ). I could do that myself of course, but then where would I stick the support patches? Maybe we could do a compromise and drop support for no longer supported kernels, but only a few years later? If we put the cutoff at 3 years now we'd drop everything before 2.6.34, for example. johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
