I received a comment on my blog, referencing the Kernel Team requiring a LP bug prior to committing a patch to the tree. The person commenting called it "Bureaucracy". I thought this would be the common reaction so I wanted to raise it here. My response is below...
Its not about bureaucracy, its about accountability. We add numerous patches during a cycle. While most do have a LP entry there are quite a few that don't. The problem manifests itself when someone can't remember why they added the patch. Obviously it was intended to fix a problem. There have been occasions where the patch, while fixing one bug introduced a much bigger one. When going back through the history trying to figure out why we would add it, the usual answer is "it seemed like a good idea at the time".
We are striving to stick as closely as possible to upstream, and every patch we add, whether a backport from a newer kernel or a sauce patch needs to have a bug attached. This is common a common "Change Control Measure". If it worth adding it should have a valid bug attached.