On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:17:17PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> So if a user is operating a nuclear power plant, and has 2 leds: green >> one that says "All OK!" and a red one saying "NUCLEAR MELTDOWN!", and >> once in a blue moon a race condition is causing the red one to go on and >> cause panic in the little province he lives in, we should tell that user >> to fuck off? >> >> LEDs may not be critical for you, but they can be critical for someone >> else. Think of all the different users we have and the wildly different >> ways they use the kernel. > >I am pretty sure that for almost every fix there is a person on a planet >that'd rate it "critical". We can't really use this as an argument for >inclusion of code into -stable, as that'd mean that -stable and Linus' So I think that Linus's claim that users come first applies here as well. If there's a user that cares about a particular feature being broken, then we go ahead and fix his bug rather then ignoring him. >tree would have to be basically the same. Basically the same minus all new features/subsystems/arch/etc. But yes, ideally we'd want all bugfixes that go in mainline. Who not? Instead of keeping bug fixes out, we need to work on improving our testing story. Instead of ignoring that "person that'd rate it critical" we should add his usecase into our testing matrix.
