On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 12:31:43PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:What Adrian was doing, or anybody in the future, is not going to be productive unless
On Fri, Apr 27, 2007 at 04:58:05PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
"no regressions" is definitely not feasible.Yes, but when were some of these regressions reported? Past a certain
14 known regressions, some of them not yet debugged at all, are different from your "some small regression".
point, I think it's reasonable to look at the regression, decide how
many people would be affected by it, and why it hadn't been noticed
earlier, and in some cases, decide that it's better to get this
debugged and fixed in the stable and development trees in parallel.
8 of them have been reported in March or earlier. 
Patches for 2 of these 8 were available at the time of the release. 
While the question whether to merge one of them into 2.6.21 was controversial, the other one was not controversial.
For one of the bugs, it became obvious when someone looked at it after the release of 2.6.21 that between the bug report on March 31th and the release of 2.6.21 on April 21th, noone started debugging this bug.  
And look e.g. at the many (and non-trivial) changes between -rc7 and -final, resulting in more than one report from people who were running -rc7 without problems - and 2.6.21 doesn't work for them.I agree that's unfortunate.
It's not a choice between "regressions don't matter" and "no regressions",Everyone is going to disagree to some extent; and their own comfort
it's about the place in the area between these two extremes. I have my opinions on what I want to expect from a stable Linux kernel, and other people have different opinins.
zone. So a certain amount compromise is always going to be necessary.
Of course, it's up to you decide whether this has gone beyond the zone
where you aren't comfortable working with other people's development
 and although it turned out this specific regression was already fixed in 2.6.21, I hope you get my point