Re: 2.6.15-rc6: known regressions in the kernel Bugzilla

[Michael Krufky <mkrufky@gmail.com>]

On 12/23/05, Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> >
> >>not a post-2.6.14 regression
> >>
> >
> >
> > Well yeah.  But that doesn't mean thse things have lower priority that
> > post-2.6.14 regressions.
> >
> > I understand what you're doing here, but we should in general concentrate
> > upon the most severe bugs rather than upon the most recent..
>
> Hypocratic oath: "First, do no harm."
>
> If a new kernel version can't make things *better*, at least it
> shouldn't make them *worse*. New features are good, performance
> improvements are good, breaking working systems with an update is not good.
>
> I'm with Adrian on this, if you want people to test and report with -rc
> kernels, then there should be some urgency to addressing the reported
> problems.

I agree.  Quite frankly, I am extremely surprised that this matter is
even up for discussion.  Is it really so important to release 2.6.15
before the end of 2005 that we dont even have the time to fix
regressions that have already been reported in older kernels? 
ESPECIALLY given that patches are said to be available?

IMHO, I agree that new regressions are most important to fix, but I
feel that old regressions are extremely important to fix as well.  If
we know of more regressions that CAN be fixed before a kernel release,
why not do it?

Why should there be any rush to release the next mainline version?  To
make it in time for Christmas?  A better Christmas gift to the world
would be a new release without regressions, be it a month late, who
cares?  (I know -- not likely, but at least we should try)

...and that's my opinion.

-Michael Krufky
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/