Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750870AbWABRjO (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:39:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750872AbWABRjO (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:39:14 -0500 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:10941 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750841AbWABRjO (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Jan 2006 12:39:14 -0500 From: Andi Kleen To: Adrian Bunk Subject: Re: 2.6.15-rc7: known regressions Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 18:38:37 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <200601021807.52533.ak@suse.de> <20060102172340.GI17398@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20060102172340.GI17398@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601021838.38310.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 791 Lines: 21 On Monday 02 January 2006 18:23, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Would you veto against a section "known regressions" in the final 2.6.15 > announcement listing this issue with a link to the Bugzilla bug? Yes for this case. The original was likely so fragile that it might break only with minor changes in the hardware configuration. In general listing known regressions is a good idea though. It might be a good idea to give them different priorities though - e.g. a broken BIOS with a missing workaround is less priority than a pure Linux bug. -Andi - 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/