Kernel Bug Migration

Ben Collins ben.collins at canonical.com
Tue Jun 17 14:36:47 UTC 2008


On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 16:18 +0200, Krzysztof Lichota wrote:
> 2008/6/17 Ben Collins <ben.collins at canonical.com>:
> >> Seems like the opposite of the whole LTS idea. Fix-by-upgrade is not a
> >> solution. Newer release could introduce other bugs and then what?
> >> Upgrade to even newer version? Not to mention that LTS releases are
> >> rare, so there might be no newer LTS version to upgrade to.
> >>
> >> IMO bugs should be fixed in LTS kernels and/or newer kernels should be
> >> backported to LTS releases.
> >
> > For LTS releases, we only guarantee that we wont regress the kernel, and
> > that we will keep it up-to-date with security fixes. Fixing known bugs
> > is on a best-effort basis and is not guaranteed. So this isn't anything
> > new.
> 
> So it comes down to: there is no use in reporting bugs against LTS as
> they will be fixed in 2 years?

No, since those bugs help us to fix things immediately, not in 2 years.

> Shouldn't it be "we will try hard to iron out all bugs for LTS and
> deliver it in non-disruptible, voluntary manner (through -backports or
> -updates)"?

It really depends on the extent of those bugs. If it affects a lot of
people, then that's where the "best effort" comes in. We obviously
aren't going to fix everyone's bugs or bugs that only affect a minority
of users because we have to weigh our efforts and the possibilities for
regressions.

The nature of the bugs also comes into play. If it's an infrequent
annoyance, then we may not fix it either. Where as, if it keeps people
from using the OS at all, then it is more likely to get fixed.

So let's not try to put a blanket policy around all bugs affecting an
LTS. There are a lot of criteria involved.





More information about the kernel-team mailing list