Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <david@lang.hm>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: When to push bug fixes to mainline
In-Reply-To: <20130712051451.GC25815@1wt.eu>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1307160017120.16723@nftneq.ynat.uz>
References: <20130711214830.611455274@linuxfoundation.org> <20130712005023.GB31005@thunk.org> <20130712051451.GC25815@1wt.eu>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 995
Lines: 23

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.

David Lang
--
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/