Dear Herbert, > I've been maintaining Linux-VServer for more than 12 years > now and no worries, I'm not done with it yet. First of all, thank you very much for all the work you have done so far and the work you will hopefully do in the future on Liux-Vserver. This is such a great project, we are happy users in production mode for about 5 years now and fully appreciate all the effort that goes into providing almost always stable patches for recent LTS kernels. I did not witness the situation you are talking about, so I cannot really comment on the issue. It sounds like somebody missunderstood how open source works. I am not sure making a maintainer angry is a good way to get anywhere, thus I salute you for delivering in spite. I remember we had a small chat in IRC about which kernels should be supported last year. At that time, Greg just decided to make 3.10 the LTS release and a patch for 3.10 was still missing (you managed to get it done 1 or 2 days after or so) and I felt you also liked the idea to focus more on LTS releases. Maybe it is time to think about focus again. For anybody using Linux-Vserver in production mode, it is highly unlikely that they want (!) or would need the latest mainline kernel. No sane sysadmin upgrades to latest mainline every release. To maintain latest mainline, you also need a lot of resources (e.g. free time, testing maschines etc.) since they do change major parts of the needed subsystems very often. So by always providing patches for current mainline, you only support a small minority which probably doesnt use the kernel in production mode anyway. Quite the opposite goes for LTS kernels. These only get bugfixes so they are almost hassle-free for most sysadmins to work with. I believe many who use Linux-Vserver use LTS versions. And from your perspective, keeping the patches working should also be a lot less effort. So by focusing on LTS, you provide support for the majority of users, while keeping your workload to a minimum. So, I suggest to put up some info on the wiki that from now on, you follow LTS lines and adopt supporting current mainline. That way nobody takes support for current mainline granted. And you could still work on it to keep up with changes, and as soon as there is a next LTS candidate in sight, you could then release a new LTS very soon after. All that, without the hassle nor the pressure to provide a tested "stable" patch for every major and minor mainline release. I'd like to hear your thoughts, and also what the community thinks about this. Once again, thank you and keep up the good work. I'm sure there really are many like us who still feel high appreciation. It would make us very sad if you discontinued the work. Best Florian