On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:43:14PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >I assume "forking" the kernel for jessie+½ as done for etch-and-half is > >the plan already? (forking as in using a new source package…) > God, no - really *not* that way at all. I'm thinking of using the > kernel in backports at the time we do a build/test/release > cycle. People using this and updating will end up following bpo for a > while until the Stretch release. ah, ok.
then I'd like to suggest *not* to call it jessie+half, as we have used
that term already (for etch+half) and there we had a frozen/stable kernel,
not a moving target like bpo.
maybe "jessie+bpo-installer" would be a better fit?
and maybe, we could also do such releases more regularily (if this works
out and turns out not to be that much extra work…)
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
