Why was a kernel-2.6.34 pushed to updates that had un-addressed bugs.

[drago01]

On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, cornel panceac <cpanceac at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2010/9/2 drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dennis J. <dennisml at conversis.de> wrote:
>>
>> > 2. Regressions can be easier to fix because you have a "known to work"
>> > case
>> > you can use as a comparison. If bugs could be flagged as regression then
>> > developers you potentially look at these first right after the
>> > regressions
>> > occurred and probably identify the reason for the regression right away.
>>
>> It isn't that easy as you make it sound (especially for the kernel).
>> It can up to need a git bisect but that requires being able to
>> reproduce said bug (which might require hardware that the maintainer
>> does not have).
>>
>>
> that's one of the many reasons testers' work should not just be discarded.

Where did I say that?

> they have a lot of hardware and a lot of time the developers can not
> possibly have. also they are more significant as average users since they
> are not special persons working for special companies. i assumed here that
> the average user is important, at least as important as a(ny) company.

Well yeah if a tester actually takes the time and run a bisect and
tells the developer "this bug is caused by commit foo" it would indeed
be very helpful.

I was just replying to the statement "it is a regression and thus
easier to fix", which isn't that simply in real world.