| 1 |
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:19:43 -0700 |
| 2 |
Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Greg KH wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do |
| 7 |
> > > know some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such |
| 8 |
> > > anyway. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always |
| 11 |
> > the one with the most fixes. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Define "better"; because 3.10.0 has also been worse than the last 3.9 |
| 14 |
release in some ways, despite it having more fixes than the last 3.9. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > Rather than separating "bug fixes" from "security fixes" maybe it's |
| 17 |
> > wiser to think about separating "fixes" from "features" - this may |
| 18 |
> > be easier, but still not neccessarily easy. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> For stable kernel releases, that type of thing should be quite easy |
| 21 |
> for someone to do, if they want to do it, as the only type of |
| 22 |
> "features" I take for them are new device ids. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> But I fail to see how marking 5 patches out of 100 as "features" is |
| 25 |
> really doing to do much for anyone, do you? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Preferably this would be done for any release, a release like 3.10.0 |
| 28 |
doesn't have to be an exception; it does contain a lot more features. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
With kind regards, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 34 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 37 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 38 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives