On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 08:52 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> On Feb 17 Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 15:29 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > > Jiri,
> > > if the desire is to improve performance of existing features (and maybe
> > > add this and that little feature that looks attractive), while at the same
> > > time you want
> > > - experts to have looked at these improvements,
> > > - packagers to avoid duplicate work,
> > > - keep the number of local patches in check,
> > > then the solution is to /stay close enough to the mainline/.
>
> [By which I meant updating, not backporting.]
[but you know that ain't an option too]
> > People are fixing this and that in their enterprise kernels privately
> > every day. The only difference between that, and pushing baked fixes
> > back is that pushing to stable is visible. I strongly suspect that
> > there are just tons of mainline backports sitting in each and every
> > enterprise tree in existence.
>
> 'Visible' = the change which was an important performance improvement or
> outright fix at site A (and a nice-to-have improvement on sites B...X)
> eventually exhibits a regression at site Y.
Known bugs are stable bugs, known performance problems are stable
performance problems is the only answer to that. Leaving them as is
does remove risk of a customer satisfaction delta.. but..
But whatever. Yeah, I understand that it's a sticky wicket.
-Mike
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
