On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:12:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:02:03 +0000
>Sasha Levin <alexander.le...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> One of the things Greg is pushing strongly for is "bug compatibility":
>> we want the kernel to behave the same way between mainline and stable.
>> If the code is broken, it should be broken in the same way.
>
>Wait! What does that mean? What's the purpose of stable if it is as
>broken as mainline?

This just means that if there is a fix that went in mainline, and the
fix is broken somehow, we'd rather take the broken fix than not.

In this scenario, *something* will be broken, it's just a matter of
what. We'd rather have the same thing broken between mainline and
stable.

Reply via email to