Hi, it would be great to have an actively maintained LTS release. Clearly all us "Distribution People" like Panu, Me and a few others should - whenever bugs are identified as potential backports - start the discussion. And having an stable-maintainer on the other end sounds great.
The active maintainer you provide would do the usual auto-backport of fixes once they come up upstream. While us others would provide input from real exposure to users that flows in via bug tracking tools. Looking forward for you coming back to the list once you have found one. Christian Ehrhardt Software Engineer, Ubuntu Server Canonical Ltd On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 4:49 PM, Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara at intel.com> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Christian Ehrhardt > > Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 9:07 AM > > To: dev <dev at dpdk.org>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org> > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Suggestions for the dpdk stable tree > > > > Hi, > > I guess over time/releases less people mind the 2.2-stable. > > But I still see a lot of people referring to 2.2 - so why not giving this > > thread a ping again. > > > > ack / nack / opinions ? > > Hi Christian, > > We are interested in having a LTS/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. > > We would probably be looking at 16.04 or even 16.07 as the basis for the > LTS at this stage. > > It would be great if we could get support from you or others as well. > > John. > -- > >
