X-Git-Url: https://git.decadent.org.uk/gitweb/?p=stable-kernel-talk.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=index.html;fp=index.html;h=52567ff3a3d1fa33775c68576aa06d75f2ae0c71;hp=c60f3c5864facf35a2fe911ccd751a20a0ac18b8;hb=929759125f4548474dbaff7a33a1a79265b502f9;hpb=b2da64e45dc6520d96a82dde4cd4aa8affa695dc

diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index c60f3c5..52567ff 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -169,6 +169,37 @@
   </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>