10 years -- was Re: 5.10 LTS Kernel: 2 or 6 years?

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> One of my impression, which might or might not be shared, is that the
> duration is more important than the frequency, which means that having
> one extended kernel every two years would bring much more value than
> maintaining all of them only 3 years, and would equally result in cutting
> the effort in half: with 6 years, you still have 5 years if you upgrade
> every two years.

> Maybe one possibility would be to start gauging upfront around september
> whether or not the end-of-year's LTS should be an extended LTS or not,
> and if so, what's needed and who's willing to particpate. I suspect that
> numerous companies have available resources to help but are not even
> aware that they could help, and they're seeing something which works

One place where companies can pool resources to help is CIP
project. Timeframe there is 10 years, not 6, and there is focus on
specific boards.

https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform/start
https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/civilinfrastructureplatform/ciptesting/cipreferencehardware

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20210129/1f8bb162/attachment.sig>