lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.
    From
    Date

    >
    > 70% hit a bug

    this part I consider meaningless personally. If it was "70% hit a
    regression" or even x% hit a regression I would be a lot more worried.

    > 1/7th think it's deteriorating
    > 1/4th think lkml response is inadequate
    > 3/5ths think bugzilla response is inadequate
    > 2/5ths think we have features-vs-stability wrong
    after lots of press.
    > 2/3rds hit a bug. Of those, 1/3rd remain unfixed
    > 1/5th of users are presently impacted by a kernel bug
    >
    > Happy with that?

    I'm not saying things are perfect. Far from that.
    What I care about is if things are getting worse or not. My personal
    impression is that while things were flakey on the ABI front during
    early 2.6 (before 2.6.12 or so), that got fixed because every single bug
    is a major annoyance to a large group of people. (and most bugs in the
    survey were from before that).

    The counter argument to your "doom" data is that bugrates for acpi for
    example have been mostly steady, while the number of users has been
    increasing quite a bit.

    I don't have the impression things are getting worse personally. I do
    hit bugs, in -mm and in -rc kernels, but that is because I'm testing
    kernels intended for testing. (another thing that the 70% figure didn't
    separate out)

    We've gotten better. Adrian started tracking regressions, and that is
    helping to make sure that those don't slip through the cracks as much as
    they used to (some are unavoidable, especially performance ones or ones
    with really obscure hardware that is showing hard to reproduce things).
    The -stable series is working out well to fix security and other
    annoying bugs quickly post release (because yes things don't get tested
    fully until you release), but even -stable is not nearly getting massive
    infloods of serious regressions. Sure they are fixing more stuff now,
    but that's more a sign that the process is working, and that they are
    now picking up less critical stuff as well, than that it is a sign that
    things are getting worse.

    I'd love if bug responses were better. At the same time, declaring
    "bugfix only kernel" isn't going to improve that much; it just creates a
    larger flood of stuff for the kernel after that. Do you have the
    impression that high quality bug reports on lkml (with this I mean ones
    where there is sufficient information, which are not a request for
    support and where the reporter actually answers questions that are asked
    him) are not getting reasonable attention?


    --
    if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
    Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-11-09 10:55    [W:0.033 / U:89.408 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site