| 1 |
On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 04:43:09AM +0200, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:19:43 -0700 |
| 3 |
> Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 12:50:32AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Greg KH wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > See above for why it is not easy at all, and, why even if we do |
| 8 |
> > > > know some fixes are security ones, we would not tag them as such |
| 9 |
> > > > anyway. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > I think this supports the argument that the better kernel is always |
| 12 |
> > > the one with the most fixes. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Define "better"; because 3.10.0 has also been worse than the last 3.9 |
| 15 |
> release in some ways, despite it having more fixes than the last 3.9. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
How was it "worse"? You don't seem to define that either :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Yes, there are always going to be bugs and regressions, but as long as |
| 20 |
we are fixing them more than we are making them, we are doing ok. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
greg k-h |
Archives