| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
> > See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do know |
| 4 |
> > some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such anyway. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always |
| 7 |
> the one with the most fixes. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
That's what us kernel developers have been saying for 10+ years, nice to |
| 10 |
see it's finally getting some traction :) |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Rather than separating "bug fixes" from "security fixes" maybe it's |
| 13 |
> wiser to think about separating "fixes" from "features" - this may |
| 14 |
> be easier, but still not neccessarily easy. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
For stable kernel releases, that type of thing should be quite easy for |
| 17 |
someone to do, if they want to do it, as the only type of "features" I |
| 18 |
take for them are new device ids. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
But I fail to see how marking 5 patches out of 100 as "features" is |
| 21 |
really doing to do much for anyone, do you? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
thanks, |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
greg k-h |
Archives