Linus Torvalds wrote:
In other words, there's a _reason_ we have staggered development. We have
the "crazy development trees" (aka -mm and various other trees), we have
the "development tree" (aka Linus' tree), and we have the -stable tree. If
the stable tree has a dozen known issues that they'll have to sort out
over the next two months, that's *fine*. That's kind of the point of the
stable tree.
If the result is fixing things which then don't get fixed in mainline,
as Adrian notes, then there is something wrong with the process, and why
will people bother to work on stable if they have doubts that there will
be long term benefit.
With all the effort the regressions list takes and the stable group puts
into fixes, someone in charge should insist that regressions fixed in
stable be fixed in mainline. Since there's only one "someone in charge"
of policy, I think that's a reasonable commitment to the people doing
the work.
--
Bill Davidsen <[email protected]>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
