On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 12:15:37PM +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora <at> leemhuis.info> writes: > > Now: seems so afaics. But when it was new it was a regression for quite > > a bunch of people. That's bad and we should avoid regressions as much as > > possible. Just like the kernel developers do -- Torvalds on lkml yells > > While I agree regressions are annoying, and thus perceived as a very bad thing, > in practice regressions are less of a problem than unfixed bugs: if there's a > regression, you can rollback to a working package, if there are unfixed bugs, > you have nothing to upgrade or downgrade to. > > Kevin Kofler I don't think so. If there's unfixed bug it means that things don't work, didn't work and won't work for some time. But regression means that thing worked but don't work now. At least for me bugs doesn't matter me. Regression yes. I remember Linus speach that if We fix all regressions and some bugs programs become better. If We neglect regressions it's impossible complain if software is better or worse, people will be annoyed. You were accustomed and you have to switch your habbits - it's pretty harder that you want start using something new and you can't so you will find other solution which works for you. We really should be focused primarily on regressions, not for "common" bugs. Adam -- Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
