Subject: Re: [vserver] Stable Linux-VServer Release
From: "John A. Sullivan III" <jsullivan@opensourcedevel.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:39:22 -0400

On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 14:51 +0100, Gordan Bobic wrote: 
> On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:36:10 +0200, Herbert Poetzl 
>  <herbert@13thfloor.at> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
>  I'll try to get around to doing a quick test tonight to see if the 
>  latest 3.0.x works on RHEL6 based userspace, and if it doesn't, 
>  establish what the latest that works is. I'll also see what I can do WRT 
>  testing what the latest working kernel is for current Fedora on ARM, but 
>  that may take an extra few days.
> 
>  Perhaps fans of the other distros can verify what is the latest that 
>  works on them?
> 
>  I think the most important target for stabilization is the "stable" 
>  distributions (e.g. RHEL, Debian) rather than the bleeding edge ones 
>  (e.g. Fedora, Ubuntu).
> 
>  Gordan

Agreed.  Given how regularly we are able to provide release versions of
vserver, we need to be able to live with this one for a while. On the
other hand, if it gives us grief with major distributions, it's a waste
of time - John