Integrating 2.6.32.y for lucid

[Stefan Bader]

Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> 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

No, I do not think one necessarily leads to the other. There still could
and actually just were cases for which we decided not to go with upstream
stable (in that case the removal of some drivers). So carrying the stable
version number in the Ubuntu version does not really give more meaning to
it.
But having some review time helps to feels more confident in pulling those
into a stable kernel and hopefully being able to give some useful feedback
to upstream.

Stefan