Integrating 2.6.32.y for lucid

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Stefan Bader
<stefan.bader at canonical.com> wrote:
> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Tim Gardner <tim.gardner at canonical.com> wrote:
>>> Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Andy Whitcroft <apw at canonical.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:30:37AM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>>> Will Lucid also not take the extra version for the uname -r?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had to ask :)
>>>>> We are not currently planning on changing the name there no?  That is the
>>>>> kernel release number, and is in our case the Ubuntu release designation.
>>>>> As the stable releases are not merged, but cherry picked often only in
>>>>> part it is not clear it is valid to say we are 2.6.31.4 if we are not in
>>>>> fact completely so.
>>>> You guys are the ones with the experience in cherry picking patches
>>>> *out* and *in*, I'm curious would it be possible to move the
>>>> discussions that you have internally about these patches themselves
>>>> into the linux stable review list instead?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think other distributions do this but I don't particularly
>>>> care about what others do, I'm trying to understand if something like
>>>> this *is* possible or not.
>>>>
>>>> In other words it would seem to me your own careful analysis of stable
>>>> patches would be kindly welcomed for the stable releases and seriously
>>>> considered.
>>>>
>>>>   Luis
>>>>
>>> AFAIK Stefan is already involved in the upstream stable review process.
>>> We generally take a second look at the stable updates in case some of
>>> them don't make sense from a distro perspective.
>>
>> Understood -- I'm just wondering if the arguments to drop a patch
>> might be useful for stable upstream discussion as well.
>>
>>   Luis
>>
>
> I think I will going to give a bit more feedback there. I often have/had the
> problem of the deadline and receiving the review mail clashed a bit with working
> hours, so I felt the feedback would have come too late anyways. I have been asking
> whether potentially this could be a bit prolongued (especially as going over a hundred
> patches takes a bit of time, not that its always that much).

Ah yeah, I can see that, thanks for the elaboration on this. So if the
time for stable review fixes got extended you may possibly consider
using the upstream kernels extra versions as-is given that you'd be
more content with them? How much time do you think is reasonable that
could help with this?

  Luis