lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> On 07/16/2013 12:19 AM, David Lang wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>
>>> And maybe in the end, having 1/10 patch cause a regression is not *that*
>>> dramatic, and probably less than not fixing the 9 other bugs. In one case
>>> we rely on -stable to merge the 10 fixes, and on the other case we'd rely
>>> on -stable to just revert one of them.
>>
>> Apologies for the late post, I'm catching up on things, but this jumped
>> out at me.
>>
>> We went through a LOT of pain several years ago when people got into the
>> mindset that a patch was acceptable if it fixed more people than it
>> broke. eliminating that mindset did wonders for kernel stability.
>>
>> Regressions are a lot more of a negative than bugfixes are a positive, a
>> 10:1 ratio of fixes to regressions is _not_ good enough.
>>
>
> In my opinion, there is one exception, and that is when the problem
> being fixed is much more severe than the fix. *In particular* two
> cases: permanently damaging hardware and corrupting data. For example:
> no boot, as severe as it is, is much better than either of these two
> scenarios.

True, but the key point of this subthread is that regressions are _really_ bad,
and in practice it's impossible to do enough testing to guarantee that there
aren't regressions.

as a result, you should only risk regressions if the problem that is being fixed
is really important. Just because someone found a bug doesn't make it important
enough to risk regressions over.

David Lang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-16 23:21    [W:0.246 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site