On Wed, 23 May 2007, Ray Lee wrote: > The problem is when the maintainers/submitters get the wrong > impression, that 2.6.x.y is there to clean up the mess they made. The Now, that I agree with completely. > Which is the crux of my problem with your statement. I feel we > shouldn't give the wrong idea to those authors. They need to know that > the expectation is that 2.6.x is a stable series, and 2.6.x.y is for > dealing with unavoidable mistakes. Well, the only case where I feel a regression is justified is one where it is caused by a bug in the firmware or the hardware. At which point my personal opinion is that users of firmware/hardware *that have a fix available* are to be told to apply the fix, unless the problem is so serious that it could potentially cause extreme damage (loss of human life, permanent hardware damage, major data loss). If there is no fix the user can apply, then it really depends on how damaging it is to work around the issue for others: you don't punish those who have non-broken stuff to avoid problems for those that have broken stuff. Fortunately, most of the time one can come up with a fix that causes little to no loss to those with non-broken hardware/firmware. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
