Re: 5.10 LTS Kernel: 2 or 6 years?

[Scott Branden <scott.branden@broadcom.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4383 bytes --]

Hi Willy,

On 2021-02-18 1:00 p.m., Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 12:16:50PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote:
>> On 2021-02-18 10:36 a.m., Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 07:20:50PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 06:53:56PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 09:21:13AM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>>>>>> As a company, we are most likely shooting ourselves in the foot by not
>>>>>> having a point of coordination with the Linux Foundation and key people
>>>>>> like you, Greg and other participants in the stable kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does the LF have to do with this?
>>>>>
>>>>> We are here, on the mailing lists, working with everyone.  Just test the
>>>>> -rc releases we make and let us know if they work or not for you, it's
>>>>> not a lot of "coordination" needed at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, if no one is saying that they are going to need these for 6
>>>>> years and are willing to use it in their project (i.e. and test it),
>>>>> there's no need for us to maintain it for that long, right?
>>>>
>>>> Greg, please remember I expressed I really need them for slightly more than
>>>> 3 years (say 3.5-4) :-) I'm fine with helping a bit more as time permits if
>>>> this saves me from having to take over these kernels after you, like in the
>>>> past, but I cannot engage on the regularity of my availability.
>>>
>>> Ok, great!
>>>
>>> That's one person/company saying they can help out (along with what CIP
>>> has been stating.)
>>>
>>> What about others?  Broadcom started this conversation, odd that they
>>> don't seem to want to help out :)
>> Greg, I'm sorry but I'm not in a position to provide such a commitment.
> 
> Are you at least in a position to defend that ? There are necessarily
> some people in your company who understand the benefits of using open
> source provdided for free by others and who understand that devoting
> a few people's time to this task is extremely cheap compared to the
> amount of work required by having to do it entirely yourself for a
> lower quality.
> 
>> My original question arose because the 5.10 kernel is declared as 2 years LTS
>> while older LTS kernels are now 6 years.
> (...)
>> If all LTS kernels were declared as 3.5-4 years as Willy commented this would
>> solve a few issues. 6 year LTS kernels would only have a maximum 1 year
>> lifespan over the latest declared LTS kernel. Also, many products take a year
>> or more to develop, there isn't any life left in an LTS kernel if it is only
>> 2 years.
> 
> We all have the same problem regarding this but how do you want Greg to
> engage into such a task by himself if he's not certain he can count on
> others to help ? The few of us having worked on extended kernels know
> that there's a limit around 2.5 years beyond which backports become much
> harder to perform and to test. Doing it every year would result in 6 LTS
> kernels to maintain in addition to the last 1-2 stable ones. That becomes
> a huge amount of work! I even think that having one LTS kernel every 2
> years but maintained one extra year (e.g. 5 vs 4 in my case) would reduce
> the effort.
> 
>> After 1-3 years of kernel age the relevant parties that want to invest and
>> care about supporting specific kernel versions longer should become apparent
>> and could commit to longer support.
> 
> But that's exactly what's currently being done. Greg initially commits
> to 2 years hoping to get some help to pursue this longer, and this causes
> trouble to some of us not being certain upfront whether or not we're choosing
> the right kernel. So only the solution I'm seeing is for Greg to know
> early who jumps in so that those of us without the power or skill to
> entirely maintain a kernel by themselves know early which version to
> choose. Quite frankly if we ship an LTS kernel in a product, the least
> we can do is to give back a little bit to make sure the situation remains
> durable.
> 
> As such even if you are not in a position to provide such a commitment,
> I'd appreciate it if you would bring these arguments to those who are in
> such a position, so that I don't end up as one of the too few ones having
> to share a significant part of that task to make sure this valuable kernel
> continues to exist.
Thanks - will forward such info as necessary.
> 
> Thanks,
> Willy
> 


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4169 bytes --]