Comment 311 for bug 204996

Ben Collins wrote:
> Upstream doesn't care about testing 2.6.24 any more.
But it is useful for us to assess if an issue was introduced in patches
we added to that stable release, or if it was there already.
> They want us to help test tip.
Sure, which is why we should make tip available for both stable and
development releases (currently Hardy and Intrepid).
> Besides, there's no good base to say "corresponds to hardy's kernel"
> because we stopped syncing at like 2.6.24.2, but we have lots of
> cherry picks for CVE's and SRU's from 2.6.24.y beyond .2. So hardy is
> currently > 2.6.24.2 but < 2.6.24.y head.
Then choose either .2 or .y, I would go with .2 personally, and I would
also try not to stop syncing, though I understand there are ABI issues.

> So it wouldn't even be beneficial to us to provide a "stock" kernel
> for hardy users. It wouldn't tell us the difference between .y fixing
> it, or stock working because we have a bad patch.
But .2 would tell us that.

> Ubuntu-next we've already started with. I'm quite reluctant to provide
> it in a PPA. Upstream constantly complains about the quality of bug
> reports from our users, and I fear that this would increase it because
> of non-technical users trying these kernels and not being able to
> properly help debug them.
I think we should DROP ubuntu-next. It's more work than any other
option, it's bugs are of no interest to upstream OR US.

> IMO, if we really want this PPA stuff, we need more man-power on the
> QA and engineering end of it. Just making it available isn't useful at
> all and would probably cause the reverse with upstream than what you
> want.
Please nonetheless put these into your plan, with or without ubuntu-next.

> On a similar note, I've considering putting out the idea of adding the
> LP bugzilla plug-in to upstream kernel to make it easier for us to
> forward good bug reports upstream.

That would rock indeed :-)

Mark