16 Apr
2018
16 Apr
'18
4:19 p.m.
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.Levin@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.