X-Git-Url: https://git.decadent.org.uk/gitweb/?p=stable-kernel-talk.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=index.html;h=52567ff3a3d1fa33775c68576aa06d75f2ae0c71;hp=0d9a78c83e0fd6356e9a8fbc4667c372b3cfa143;hb=929759125f4548474dbaff7a33a1a79265b502f9;hpb=8d93d40cbb65f884b5342c724c5ff4b725be88b8

diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index 0d9a78c..52567ff 100644
--- 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>
@@ -103,6 +103,103 @@
   </ul>
 </div>
 
+<div class="slide">
+  <h1>The stable update process (2)</h1>
+  <ul>
+    <li>
+      Stable branch maintainer sends pending changes to the mailing
+      list, the original authors, etc., for a time-limited period of
+      review and testing
+      <ul>
+	<li>
+	  Although the changes have been accepted by Linus, some might
+	  not be needed in a stable branch or might not work due to
+	  missing dependencies
+	</li>
+	<li>
+	  A fix might have been found to introduce a regression in
+	  mainline, so should only be applied to the stable branch
+	  along with a second fix for the regression
+	</li>
+      </ul>
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      All changes that passed review (and maybe some that were
+      added) are applied to the stable branch and the release is
+      tagged
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      Greg pushes the tag to kernel.org (possibly after pulling
+      from the other maintainer) which generates tarballs,
+      updates the front page, etc.
+    </li>
+    <li>
+      Maintainer announces the release, shortly followed by LWN
+      and other news media
+    </li>
+  </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>