> -----Original Message----- > From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu at linux.intel.com] > Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 3:22 AM > To: Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com> > Cc: Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt at canonical.com>; dev > <dev at dpdk.org>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Thomas > Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestions for the dpdk stable tree > > > We have been looking at identifying a maintainer and validation engineer > internally to support the effort but haven't be able to finalize that. > Once we do we will come back to the mailing list with a proposal and a > request for comments. > > I would nominate myself as the LTS tree maintainer, if it makes sense to > have one.
Hi Yuanhan, Thanks for putting your name forward. I think your experience as the dpdk-next-virtio maintainer will help with this. > > We would probably be looking at 16.04 or even 16.07 as the basis for the > LTS at this stage. > > Just one opinion from the view of vhost: since 16.07 is a vhost ABI/API > refactoring release, I'd suggest to base on 16.07, and then we could have > less conflicts to apply later bug fix patches. Agreed. At this stage 16.07 make more sense. I'll start a separate discussion thread about how the LTS process would work to see if we can get some consensus from interested parties. John. --
