On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:19:14 +0000
Sasha Levin <alexander.le...@microsoft.com> wrote:

> >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.

Honestly, I think that removes all value of the stable series. I
remember when the stable series were first created. People were saying
that it wouldn't even get to more than 5 versions, because the bar for
backporting was suppose to be very high. Today it's just a fork of the
kernel at a given version. No more features, but we will be OK with
regressions. I'm struggling to see what the benefit of it is suppose to

-- Steve

Reply via email to