On Dec 7, 2011, at 5:32 AM, Richard Earnshaw <rearn...@arm.com> wrote: > So this, to some extent seems to conflict with your rules for only fixing > regressions. This code has always been broken in one way or another, > so technically this doesn't qualify for the 4.6 branch.
My take, does this fix improve the quality enough to be work the risk the patch brings... Having bad quality because the quality has been bad in the past, is well, a bad idea.
