<div dir="ltr">I had to explain this again today. @alan, or @akemi, thoughts?<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Dave.<br><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 2:06 PM Dave Chiluk <<a href="mailto:dchiluk@indeed.com" target="_blank">dchiluk@indeed.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">If I'm not mistaken in kernel-ml, ml stands for mainline. This is actually quite a misnomer as <a href="http://kernel.org" target="_blank">kernel.org</a> uses mainline to refer to Linus' development tree. In actuality kernel-ml is instead built off of the stable tree. I've seen a number of people get confused by this nuance. <div><br></div><div>I know it would suck to do, but it really feels like it should be named something like kernel-stable *(because of <a href="http://kernel.org" target="_blank">kernel.org</a> conventions), or possibly kernel-st (for short-term). I'm not really sure what the correct name should be, but I'm certain it should not be kernel-ml.</div><div><br></div><div>We could even create a transitional kernel-ml package that depends on the newly named rpm to provide a no-brainer upgrade path.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Dave. </div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div>