RFC: Stable kernel updates and the SRU process

[Ben Collins]

Stefan Bader wrote:
> Tim Gardner wrote:
>> I would like to propose the following change in policy with regard to
>> the Ubuntu kernel and stable tree updates.
>>
>> In the past our kernels have incorporated stable kernel tree updates up
>> to the point of kernel freeze. After that point, only those patches that
>> were specifically referenced by SRU Launchpad reports were applied.
>>
>> The upstream process for stable tree updates is quite similar in scope
>> to the SRU process, e.g., each patch has to demonstrably fix a bug, and
>> each patch is vetted by upstream by originating either directly from
>> Linus' tree or in a minimally backported form of that patch.
>>
>> I think we are remiss if we do not take advantage of that upstream
>> process to improve our kernel. Therefore I propose that we modify our
>> kernel update policy such that we adopt stable kernel updates at
>> appropriate points in the release process (avoiding kernel freezes etc)
>> for as long as upstream continues to provide updates, and that these
>> stable kernel updates not be subject to the SRU process.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> rtg
> 
> I would also be in favor of such a change. In the past there have been several
> bug that were fixed by changes in the stable tree which we had to search for
> and then pull in. Also the patches in the stable tree are generally small and
> it takes a review process to get them in. So why not simplify our workload by
> pulling them in by default. I'd also only do one tracking bug per stable release.
> 

I should point out that regardless of the upstream process, we have, in 
the past, gotten regressions due to these changes.

Hence the reason we have the current policy.