On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 04:54:07PM +0200, Roman Vesely wrote: > V Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:51:17 +0100 > Gordan Bobic <gordan@bobich.net> napsáno: >>> thus the first thing is to select a kernel we want >>> to stabilize for a stable release ... >>> options IMHO are: >>> - 2.6.32.x (has performance issues, but is long term) >>> - 2.6.38.x (good performance, not longterm yet) >>> - 3.0.x (immature, but the future) >> [...] >>> please share your thoughts and preferences in this >>> thread so that we get an idea where we are heading to >> Provided that 3.0.x branch will work on most current stable releases >> of major distros (latest RHEL, SuSE, Debian) without major userspace >> changes (e.g. mkinitrd/dracut, dm/md programs), my vote is >> definitely for it. In general, whatever is the latest that works on >> all of them is probably the best target to stabilize on since it is >> what will be useful to most people. > After several months of stabilization vserver patch for 3.0 kernel > will be 3.0 kernel UNSUPPORTED and bad choice for production setup. > And in 3.1 kernel may be large changes difficult to adapt - > never-ending story continues. this might be true, but it might also be that the 3.0 branch brings a new stabilization period upstreams as well, with the main focus on bug fixing ... for example, I just backported the latest 3.0 Linux-VServer patch to 2.6.39 (which has a lot more in common with 3.0 than with 2.6.38) in a few minutes (test compiling now) and the same might be true for 3.0.x and even 3.1.x of course, nobody really knows and I don't know what distributions will do, but I guess that nobody wants to stick with a 2.6 kernel now that 3.0 is out, at least all the major distros will feature and support 3.x in some way ... > Vserver team has limited time to work. > I am afraid that is wasted on the support of all kernel's. that's why we are trying to make a new 'stable' release happen, but OTOH, if there are enough contributions, I've no problem with two stable branches e.g. 2.6.32 and 3.x > Roman