Clearer wording about stable-only regressions

[stable-kernel-talk.git] / index.html

diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index 712ecd4caa4a43698be61c12dadeb924d6c20de7..c303bf1b97fee0c165b555b3e4be53c6fda63c19 100644 (file)
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@
     </li>
     <li>
       A <dfn>longterm</dfn> stable branch may be maintained by Greg or
-      another developer beyond this period
+      another developer beyond this period (I look after 3.2)
     </li>
   </ul>
 </div>
@@ -95,11 +95,15 @@
       notified and may provide a backported version
     </li>
     <li>
-      Any commit in Linus's tree, or a fix for a stable-only
-      regression, can be nominated by mail to this list, if it
+      Any commit in Linus's tree can be nominated by mail to this list, if it
       meets the criteria - see
       <a href="http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt"><tt>Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt</tt></a>
     </li>
+    <li>
+      Occasional regression fix in stable without a corresponding
+      commit in Linus's tree, because the change that regressed was
+      OK in mainline
+    </li>
   </ul>
 </div>
 
@@ -140,6 +144,66 @@
   </ul>
 </div>
 
+<div class="slide">
+  <h1>Distributions and stable updates</h1>
+  <ul>
+    <li>
+      Package maintainers want to get bug fixes without waiting for
+      the next release - particularly for security
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      Maintainers report bugs upstream, find and sometimes write
+      fixes, and stable updates are a way to share these fixes across
+      distributions
+      <ul>
+       <li>
+         Are you doing this?  If not, what's stopping you?
+       </li>
+      </ul>
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      Distribution stable releases have a much longer support period
+      than kernel release cycle, but updating to every new Linus
+      release is too risky
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      So the longterm stable branches are very important for most
+      distributions with stable releases
+    </li>
+  </ul>
+</div>
+
+<div class="slide">
+  <h1>Coordinating longterm branches</h1>
+  <ul>
+    <li>
+      Linux 2.6.32 was chosen as the basis for RHEL 6, and other
+      distributions preparing a stable release in 2010 opted to do
+      the same
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      The 2.6.32.<var>y</var> longterm branch is the basis for kernel
+      packages in Debian 6.0, SLE11 SP1 and Ubuntu 10.04 LTS and
+      has over 3,500 changes
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      Other longterm branches have not been quite as widely used or as
+      active - maybe because release schedules didn't align as well
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      Do package maintainers expect/want there to be a longterm stable
+      branch for the kernel version in a stable release?
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      Should we be coordinating more explicitly to ensure that this
+      happens?
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      Would you be prepared to maintain such a branch at kernel.org?
+    </li>
+  </ul>
+</div>
+
 <div class="slide">
   <h1>Credits</h1>
   <ul>