* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> because a perfectly working system is:
>
> "a user's .config that worked before should work with the new kernel
> too"
>
> not:
>
> "a user's .config that worked before should work now too, with random
> new kernel features enabled as well."
>
> the latter appears to be the rule you are applying, but it's not the
> regression rule we are using.
Jens, just to bring your definition of regressions to its logical
conclusion: does this mean that if there is any longstanding bug in the
block layer that you know about, but i didnt ever utilize that bit of
the block layer it in my .config, and if i enable it now in the .config
and i experience that bug, does it suddenly count as a regression? Do
you realize that your definition for "regressions" turns _almost every_
current bug in the kernel into a regression?
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrace" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Netdev]
[Linux Wireless]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Memory]
[Security]
[Linux for Hams]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Yosemite]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux RAID]
[Linux Admin]
[Samba]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux Resources]