On 07/16/2013 12:19 AM, David Lang wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Willy Tarreau wrote: > >> And maybe in the end, having 1/10 patch cause a regression is not *that* >> dramatic, and probably less than not fixing the 9 other bugs. In one case >> we rely on -stable to merge the 10 fixes, and on the other case we'd rely >> on -stable to just revert one of them. > > Apologies for the late post, I'm catching up on things, but this jumped > out at me. > > We went through a LOT of pain several years ago when people got into the > mindset that a patch was acceptable if it fixed more people than it > broke. eliminating that mindset did wonders for kernel stability. > > Regressions are a lot more of a negative than bugfixes are a positive, a > 10:1 ratio of fixes to regressions is _not_ good enough. > In my opinion, there is one exception, and that is when the problem being fixed is much more severe than the fix. *In particular* two cases: permanently damaging hardware and corrupting data. For example: no boot, as severe as it is, is much better than either of these two scenarios. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html