Hi! > >> Let me ask my wife (who is happy using Linux as a regular desktop user) > >> how comfortable she would be with triaging kernel bugs... > > > >That's really up to the distribution, not the main kernel stable. Does > >she download and compile the kernels herself? Does she use LEDs? > > > >The point is, stable is to keep what was working continued working. > >If we don't care about introducing a regression, and just want to keep > >regressions the same as mainline, why not just go to mainline? That way > >you can also get the new features? Mainline already has the mantra to > >not break user space. When I work on new features, I sometimes stumble > >on bugs with the current features. And some of those fixes require a > >rewrite. It was "good enough" before, but every so often could cause a > >bug that the new feature would trigger more often. Do we back port that > >rewrite? Do we backport fixes to old code that are more likely to be > >triggered by new features? > > > >Ideally, we should be working on getting to no regressions to stable. > > This is exactly what we're doing. > > If a fix for a bug in -stable introduces a different regression, > should we take it or not? If a fix for bug introduces regression, would you call it "obviously correct"? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
