On May 13, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Stuart Jansen <sjan...@buscaluz.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 21:36 -0500, S. Dale Morrey wrote: >> Just a thought, but aren't odd numbered kernel minor numbers supposed to be >> unstable and even numbered minors supposed to be stable? I think I >> remember reading that somewhere. > > That changed a few years ago. These days if it has a whole number it's > "stable". Which means good enough for distros to start doing their own > QA. Linus doesn't promise the same level of stability we used to see > back in the late 2.4 days, but in practice quality is high enough for > all but the paranoid. If you're paranoid but don't want to run a RHEL or > Debian Stable kernel, there's also the "longterm" kernels as listed on > kernel.org IIUC, "longterm" just means that someone has volunteered to back-port critical fixes. The 3.0 and 3.4 "longterm" kernels on kernel.org are maintained by Greg Kroah-Hartman (with help? not sure). He has stated definitively that he will not be adding 3.8 to that list (see below). I believe I also read that 3.9 was unlikely to be "longterm", but I can't find a source for that. http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/3.8-is_not_longterm_stable.html http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1208.2/02624.html My guess is that 3.0 support will be phased out around the fall and that a new "longterm" candidate will be selected around then. If new releases continue at their recent pace then it could be 3.11 ("Linux for Workgroups"?). Note too that despite their being "EOL" fixes are still sometimes applied to earlier branches for at least a short time after the next is released--at least that was the case for 3.8: 4/26/13 3.8.10 4/28/13 3.9 5/1/13 3.8.11 5/7/13 3.8.12, 3.9.1 5/11/13 3.8.13, 3.9.2 JN /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
