On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:52 PM Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>>> "IU" == Iñaki Ucar <iucar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. The meaning of "official" is that it was proposed and accepted by the kernel community as an organized and agreed upon approach. The relevance it has over the -ac or Adrian Bunk kernels is that it means it has the weight of the entire developer community behind it, as opposed to being driven by a single developer. You know, kind of like the difference between a person doing a Fedora LTS, and the Fedora community doing an LTS. It's important the community buys into it to really let it scale and grow and improve. > 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. I disagree with your conclusion here. Having the weight of the upstream kernel community behind an LTS kernel back then could have very well impacted the decision. Would it have meant Fedora LTS became a real thing back then? Probably not, as it's only a single factor. But as a former Fedora kernel maintainer, I would totally evaluate today's LTS kernels in a much more serious manner than previous attempts. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
