linux-kernel - Re: Reg the next LTS kernel (6.1?)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20230114084719.GA6057@1wt.eu>
Date:   Sat, 14 Jan 2023 09:47:19 +0100
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
        Kris Chaplin <kris.chaplin@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Reg the next LTS kernel (6.1?)

On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 09:26:07AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2023 at 08:14:12AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:40:19PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 05:22:56PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > I am just saying that developers/driver owners can simple do calculation to
> > > > > identify LTS version. When they know it they also know time when their
> > > > > deadline is for upstreaming work. It means if patch is accepted between
> > > > > 6.0-r1 and 6.0-rc5/6 they know that it will get to 6.1 merge window.
> > > > 
> > > > That is what I am afraid of and if it causes problems I will purposfully
> > > > pick the previous release.  This has happened in the past and is never
> > > > an excuse to get anything merged.  Code gets merged when it is ready,
> > > > not based on a LTS release.
> > > 
> > > This is probably the best reason not to preannounce when the LTS
> > > release will be ahead of time --- because it can be abused by
> > > developers who try to get not-ready-for-prime-time features into what
> > > they think will be the LTS kernel, with the result that the last
> > > release of the year could be utterly unsitable for that perpose.
> > 
> > We know this risk exists but since Greg never makes promises on any
> > version, it remains reasonable.
> 
> I have to _not_ make promises because in the past when I did, people
> threw crap into the kernel with the "justification" that they had to get
> it in this specific kernel because it was going to be the LTS one.
> 
> We can't have nice things, because people abuse it :(

Absolutely, that was exactly my point :-)

And quite frankly it's better the current way, because you have the
flexibility to change your mind on a given version if during the first
months you discover it's too crappy and will be a maintenance nightmare.

Willy