Canonical, WTF?
Canonical, WTF?
Posted Aug 12, 2024 7:02 UTC (Mon) by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118)In reply to: Canonical, WTF? by Hattifnattar
Parent article: A new kernel-version policy for Ubuntu
Anyway, latest schedule on Ubuntu wiki shows 23.10 was frozen from August until October. That's more than enough to get a stable kernel release from an RC.
Having said that, as a Fedora developer, I'd rather see Ubuntu just update kernel to the latest during distro lifetime, like we do.
Posted Aug 12, 2024 19:31 UTC (Mon)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link] (1 responses)
For LTS systems I'd really, really like to see the vendors coordinate more effectively through LF to share the maintenance cost, it's what the LF membership fees are supposed to pay for. What sense does it make to pay LF to maintain LTS kernels and then decide to use some other version and duplicate ethe effort with paid in-house staff, or burn precious volunteer time, maintaining your own personal LTS-fork after upstream maintenance ends?!? Is any customer really paying extra for a frankenkernel or do they just want one that works? I suppose that makes kernel features less of a product differentiator between vendors but I think the quality would probably improve if there was more wood behind fewer arrows.
Posted Aug 12, 2024 20:08 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
If you're going to have a bunch of LTS's, from a bunch of distros, all release-dated near as dammit the same, why not share an LTS kernel.
Even if a couple of distros made a point of picking (is it) Greg's LTS kernel (and doesn't he give plenty of notice which one he's going to pick?), a couple of distros helping Greg (and taking over if/when Greg drops it because his support window is shorter than the distros), it would reduce both Greg's and the distros' workload considerably.
Cheers,
Canonical, WTF?
Canonical, WTF?
Wol