Re: [Decision] Kernel version for stretch

I read this last week just before slipping into a fever in which I had recurring dreams about the relations of unnameable abstract entities that seemed later to correspond to software components. On recovering from the flu, I was pleased to find that I hadn't imagined that Niels Thykier wrote: >

[Decision] Kernel version for stretch

Hi, On the Release Team's IRC meeting today we concluded the following[1]: * We expect to release Stretch with the LTS release based on Linux 4.10 * We intend to delay the freeze (all milestone dates) by 2 months to accommodate the above. - Note that the expected release date of Linux

Re: Kernel version for stretch

On Sun, 2016-02-14 at 15:48 -0500, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Ben Hutchings [2016-02-14 15:58]: > > >  * If we stick with 4.4, the Debian Linux maintainers receives > > >    practically no advantage from Greg's LTS effort. > > > > No, we would benefit from that but this is

Re: Kernel version for stretch

Hi, On 2016-02-02 08:34, Niels Thykier wrote: Based on the current 9 week upstream release cycle, the longterm branch for 2017 will presumably be based on Linux 4.10, released at the end of week 3 (22nd January 2017). That's well after the planned stretch freeze date so I don't see how it

Re: Kernel version for stretch

* Ben Hutchings [2016-02-14 15:58]: > >  * If we stick with 4.4, the Debian Linux maintainers receives > >    practically no advantage from Greg's LTS effort. > > No, we would benefit from that but this is very early to freeze the > kernel and we would need to do a lot of

Re: Kernel version for stretch

On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 18:48 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > Ben Hutchings: > > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 07:34 +, Niels Thykier wrote: [...] > > I thought that 10 week cycles were rare, but I checked this and now I'm > > much less confident.  Rounding to the nearest week, the distribution of > >

Re: Kernel version for stretch

Ben Hutchings: > On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 07:34 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > [...] >> >> Would you prefer that we moved future freezes (i.e. Buster and later), >> so we could always rely on Greg's branch? > > Yes, I would. > Ok, we will take it into consideration for the planning of the next

Re: Kernel version for stretch

On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 07:34 +, Niels Thykier wrote: [...] > > Greg's new policy is to pick the first Linus release in each year for > > longterm maintenance.  The longterm branch for 2016 is based on Linux > > 4.4, released at the end of week 1 (10th January).  By the time stretch > > is

Re: Kernel version for stretch

* Karsten Merker [2016-02-03 08:28]: > > Having people around to test d-i daily builds until the kernel reaches > > testing > > would be nice, so that we don't wait until the d-i upload (and maybe d-i > > image > > builds) using testing's kernel to get some feedback. > > I

Re: Kernel version for stretch

On Feb 2, 2016, at 11:28 PM, Karsten Merker wrote: > On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 02:23:06PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: >> Niels Thykier (2016-02-02): >>> @Kernel+d-i - What is your take on the following: >>> >>> * How long will it take to have the new

Re: Kernel version for stretch

Hi, (Thanks for the prod.) Niels Thykier (2016-02-02): > @Kernel+d-i - What is your take on the following: > > * How long will it take to have the new release ready? >- That is, the latency between the 22nd and us having it in unstable. >- How certain are we on the

Re: Kernel version for stretch

Hi Ben, Pulling in d-i on this, since they might be affected by this. If you know of a maintainer that would be similarly affected, let me know, so we can ask them as well. Ben Hutchings: > [...] > > For stretch, I would very much like to choose a kernel version for > stret