It seems like a commit from the main branch was backported to stable branch, but it actually depended on another one which was not backported.
Linux kernel maintainers heavily backport commits as it seems the distinction between bug-fix and new features is hard to do. Also, bug-fix can depend on new features..
I'm always a bit scared when I look at the amount of commits in a single stable kernel point release, plus the fact that these point releases come out every week or so. The velocity of change in what should be a stable kernel is very high.
I'm wondering who exactly wants to run a stable kernel that receives all these updates so fast. If you want all the latest and greatest, just use -latest?
> I'm wondering who exactly wants to run a stable kernel that receives all these updates so fast. If you want all the latest and greatest, just use -latest?
I find the kernel is now the least stable bit of debian stable
I've had LTS kernels break the networking on my workstation (with a 10 year old onboard NIC) and they deliberately broke ZFS in the past
in LTS there shouldn't be ANYTHING other than security fixes
It seems like a commit from the main branch was backported to stable branch, but it actually depended on another one which was not backported.
Linux kernel maintainers heavily backport commits as it seems the distinction between bug-fix and new features is hard to do. Also, bug-fix can depend on new features..
I'm always a bit scared when I look at the amount of commits in a single stable kernel point release, plus the fact that these point releases come out every week or so. The velocity of change in what should be a stable kernel is very high.
I'm wondering who exactly wants to run a stable kernel that receives all these updates so fast. If you want all the latest and greatest, just use -latest?