From 929759125f4548474dbaff7a33a1a79265b502f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 03:42:01 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Fifth slide: coordinating longterm

---
 index.html | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)

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>
-- 
2.39.2