[07:13] <juergh> fling, That's the only 6.1 we have I think. Why do you insist on 6.1? It's not a supported version for us.
[07:14] <fling> 6.1 is a longterm and I grabbed shiftfs from it back in 6.1.13 times
[07:15] <fling> I just wanted to check if any (better) fixes got merged
[07:17] <fling> juergh: I had to use this on top for example https://bpa.st/6ZHQ
[07:18] <fling> not sure if the same patch set will work fine on 6.1.66
[07:23] <arighi> fling, we have a shiftfs patch set applied to all our supported kernels (we've disabled it in mantic, because now all the upstream filesystems support idmapped mounts, but the patch set is still applied even there)
[07:23] <fling> right
[07:23] <arighi> but I may have missed some messages here, so I'm not sure if I'm answering your question
[07:24] <fling> And which tree has the latest for 6.1? Because I can't see shiftfs in the log
[07:25] <fling> I understand that 6.1 is not supported anymore, but it probably was supported some time ago, meaning there might be some old tree with shiftfs in it :D
[07:27] <arighi> fling, oh I see what you mean, you can search for some Ubuntu-6.1* tags in the lunar repo (https://git.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-kernel/ubuntu/+source/linux/+git/lunar)
[07:27] <fling> I forgot where I pulled 6.1 shiftfs from some time ago, I'm probably looking for the same tree/branch
[07:27] <fling> thanks
[07:27] <fling> I think it was not lunar though
[07:30] <arighi> fling, kinetic was 5.19, so 6.1 was either lunar or unstable, but I would pick the shiftfs patch set from lunar rather than unstable
[07:30] <fling> right
[07:35] <fling> arighi: is tags/Ubuntu-6.1.0-16.16 the latest then?
[07:36] <fling> it is 6.1.6 and it has the rename bug ;D
[07:36] <fling> so you are right I probably pulled shiftfs from unstable last time
[07:40] <juergh> fling, Ubuntu-6.1.0-16.16 is the latest
[07:40] <arighi> fling, yep .16 should be the latest, then we moved to 6.2
[07:45] <fling> thanks!
[07:52] <fling> btw what is the 6.2 switch about? 6.2 is not the longterm
[08:31] <arighi> fling, we try to stay aligned as much as possible with the latest upstream kernels, especially in devel releases, so sometimes we may decide to jump to the next kernel even if it's not an LTS
[09:46] <juergh> fling, we don't align with upstream LTS (sadly). whatever is current around the time of our release will be our version be it an Ubuntu/mainline LTS or not.
[09:47] <juergh> We do pull all the upstream LTS patches into our LTS (if they're applicable).
[09:58] <fling> sounds like a lot of extra work
[12:20] <joseogando> fling, it is certainly an added value that we provide. 
[13:51] <fling> is there any good reason to not use longterms?
[14:42] <jchittum> fling: Timing and moving ahead. We don't want to be too far behind (so taking $OLD_LONGTERM) and unfortunately $NEW_LONGTERM doesn't always align with a release. We try even harder with our LTS releases, but for interims, moving forward is important