Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:03:38 -0700 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
> wrote:
>> I would argue instead that we don't know which bugs to fix first.
> 
> How about "a bug which we just added"?

And leave unfixed all the regressions introduced in earlier kernel versions 
and known at the time of the release of that version but still present in 
the current version? Not to mention all the other bugs reported by users of 
recent stable versions?

quoted text
> One which is repeatable. 
> Repeatable by a tester who is prepared to work with us on resolving it.

That can be true for not-so-recently introduced bugs too.

There are so many bugs out there and developers tend to focus on new ones 
leaving a lot of others unattended, both important and not so important 
ones.

Which ones should someone focus on? Maybe on the ones that someone (helped) 
introduce him/herself. Maybe that should even sometimes be prioritized over 
introducing new bugs^W^W^Wdoing new development.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/