<div dir="ltr">I completely understand, and I don't really have a great suggestion for a better name. I don't think further documentation is really necessary.<div><br></div><div>Thanks for entertaining my request.</div><div>Dave.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:35 AM Phil Perry <<a href="mailto:phil@elrepo.org">phil@elrepo.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 05/09/18 22:46, Dave Chiluk via elrepo wrote:<br>
> I had to explain this again today. @alan, or @akemi, thoughts?<br>
> <br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Dave.<br>
> <br>
<br>
Hi Dave,<br>
<br>
It's unlikely to be renamed, given the long history now. We did consider <br>
the naming very carefully when the packages were originally conceived <br>
and we have revisited that decision again now but do not feel renaming <br>
is warranted. The kernel-ml packages are built from the sources <br>
available from the "mainline stable" branch, i.e the results of Linus' <br>
-rcX "development tree" release candidates.<br>
<br>
I also feel it is a question of perspective. You may view (and prefer <br>
the name) kernel-ml as -stable, but from an Enterprise Linux <br>
perspective, someone else may view the distro kernel as the "stable" <br>
kernel and kernel-ml as a cutting edge alternative. Hence personally, I <br>
do not feel "stable" is a good fit to describe kernel-ml for the <br>
Enterprise Linux world in which we operate.<br>
<br>
We are quite happy to add some further documentation to either the Wiki <br>
or release announcements to help clarify exactly what it is that is <br>
being offered if folks are genuinely struggling with this. T be honest <br>
though, I think this is the first time it's been raised. Most confusion <br>
seems to arise around kernel-lt versions.<br>
<br>
Phil<br>
<br>
<br>
> <br>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 2:06 PM Dave Chiluk <<a href="mailto:dchiluk@indeed.com" target="_blank">dchiluk@indeed.com</a> <br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:dchiluk@indeed.com" target="_blank">dchiluk@indeed.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> If I'm not mistaken in kernel-ml, ml stands for mainline. This is<br>
> actually quite a misnomer as <a href="http://kernel.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">kernel.org</a> <<a href="http://kernel.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://kernel.org</a>> uses<br>
> mainline to refer to Linus' development tree. In actuality<br>
> kernel-ml is instead built off of the stable tree. I've seen a<br>
> number of people get confused by this nuance.<br>
> <br>
> I know it would suck to do, but it really feels like it should be<br>
> named something like kernel-stable *(because of <a href="http://kernel.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">kernel.org</a><br>
> <<a href="http://kernel.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://kernel.org</a>> conventions), or possibly kernel-st (for<br>
> short-term). I'm not really sure what the correct name should be,<br>
> but I'm certain it should not be kernel-ml.<br>
> <br>
> We could even create a transitional kernel-ml package that depends<br>
> on the newly named rpm to provide a no-brainer upgrade path.<br>
> <br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Dave.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
elrepo mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:elrepo@lists.elrepo.org" target="_blank">elrepo@lists.elrepo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo</a><br>
</blockquote></div>