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