On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 2:13 PM Wol <antl...@youngman.org.uk
> The idea behind stable kernels is great. The implementation leaves a lot
> to be desired and, as always, the reason is not enough manpower.
Two things: first, LTS kernels aren't the same as stable kernels.
Dale has been running stable kernels, and gentoo-sources kernels are
all stable kernels.
Second, I've been running LTS kernels for years without issue. I got
into them due to running zfs/btrfs/nvidia. ZFS and nvidia are out of
tree modules, and they tend to lag in support for the latest stable
branches, so it is a constant battle if you want to run stable. If
you run LTS they just work. When I was running btrfs I wanted to
stick to LTS mainly because btrfs was constantly breaking things in
new releases, which like every other subsystem are introduced in new
branches. That was a while ago and maybe btrfs is more stable today.
If you run anything out of tree though LTS is a much easier target.
Aside from that, new kernel options are almost never added within LTS
branch releases, so I just run make oldconfig and I'm done. You do
get the rare change, and it is very easy to manage those.
The downside is if you want some new kernel feature you won't get it,
and you might need to update for support for new chipsets/CPUs if
you're upgrading. That isn't a big deal to manage as I don't do it
I can't remember the last time an LTS kernel blew up on me, but I
never rush out to update a kernel the day it is released.
Occassionally I do see a regression fixed and it tends to happen
All that said, it would be nice if the kernel had more of a QA
process. I think the kernel has basically deferred all of that to
distros, which means by running an upstream kernel I get none of it.
The upstream kernel config defaults are also less than ideal, which is
something distros also manage.