long term support, multiple kernels, etc

Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:

>I think that my suggestion of having a kernel for server and kernel for desktop
>has been highly and wildly misunderstood (that's why it was supposed to be
>discussed in a BOF).
>  
>
Fabio, you and Ben are the kernel experts around here, so your thoughts
carry a lot of weight in this discussion.

I'm still open minded on either strategy: two kernels of the same
upstream version, or two dfferent kernels. I have to believe that 2.6.12
is a more stable platform for a server edition though, and that it is
more likely to be a credible server kernel. And at the same time, .14
will be needed for the latest userland love.

To what extent is the latest userland love a desktop issue? Is it both a
server and a desktop issue? Could we say that using the server kernel is
incompatible with the desktop layers? Could that be enforced in the
package dependencies? Could we for example have a 2.6.12 kernel that
would not support ubuntu-desktop for Dapper, but a .14 kernel that
would? So server guys can have the older kernel if they forego the
desktop goodies?

I do have some definite comments on the discussion so far:

 - we definitely will not do two new kernels for each release. The
"server" kernel is something new, we should only support one, max two of
those at ANY time, it makes sense to do them only for the Dapper-style
long duration releases, and only ever to have two of those in circulation.

 - we should look to see what RHEL and SUSE and Debian are using for
their major server oriented releases. I think RHEL is due a release some
time in the Dapper time frame, what will they be using? Effective
collaboration and review of their work will help us find low hanging
fruit, that is much easier to do if we're on the same upstream version.