On 16/01/2017 14:02, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 01:35:38PM +0100, Mason wrote: > >> On 16/01/2017 11:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 09:39:39AM +0100, Mason wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Greg, >>>> >>>> A few months ago, you stated that you were considering making v4.9 >>>> the latest LTS version. >>>> >>>> http://kroah.com/log/blog/2016/09/06/4-dot-9-equals-equals-next-lts-kernel/ >>>> >>>> Neither https://www.kernel.org/ nor https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html >>>> list 4.9 as an LTS version yet. >>>> >>>> Could you clear (some of) my confusion? >>> >>> It's a bit hard for a kernel to be "LTS" when it hasn't even had the >>> chance to move out of the "normal" stable release process, right? :) >> >> I think it might be worthwhile mentioning somewhere that 4.9 is LTS. >> (My manager thought 4.4 was the latest.) > > As you can see by my questions, I haven't come to that final conclusion > yet :) Sorry, I must be missing something obvious :-) What are the advantages of not listing 4.9 in the LTS list(*) until 4.11 is released? (*) https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html Regards. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html