> That is the kernel bug tracker, not the distributions bug tracker.
The point is that the contributors reasoning for being on the tree is irrelevant. Like you said, they just made it EOL
Distributions are the continuous/constant answer as to why countless people will be. This isn't an ancient release, something from the grave.
Is the expectation, then, that distributions would have to patch out the regression - or take on a more major upgrade (6.1 / 6.2), likely breaking something else?
Neither of these are particularly tenable. I'm glad GKH was willing to accept further changes to make it correct, but reverting is also applicable.
Breaking something, calling it EOL, and not fixing it is closer to dead than end of life.
>Is the expectation, then, that distributions would have to patch out the regression - or take on a more major upgrade (6.1 / 6.2), likely breaking something else?
Correct.
>Neither of these are particularly tenable.
Yes they are.
>Breaking something, calling it EOL, and not fixing it is closer to dead than end of life.
You're awfully confident about how things should work, even though you don't understand how they already work.
Distributions have their own release strategies to pick up what are now in the 6.1/6.2 trees. Some were cut at a bad time where they're treating the now EOL stable as longer term
This is really just a pedantic criticism on the handling of 6.0, and the 'ignorance' (I hate the connotation of the term) of why people don't run latest.
I'm not asking them to bend over backwards, here.
Things are going more or less the way I want, 6.0 will get fixed [edit: upstream]. Please don't take this the wrong way.
> As 6.0.y is now end-of-life, is there anything keeping you on that kernel tree?
Uh, several distributions. It wasn't EOL enough to prevent breaking it, so fix it.
Don't even technically need their input, Git and all.
I'll buy this EOL thing if they revert the change that caused this and stop releasing under 6.0. There were at least two more after this