[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs
    On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:08:32AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote:
    > Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > ..
    > > This is all QA-101 that _cannot be argued against on a rational basis_,
    > > it's just that these sorts of things have been largely ignored for
    > > years, in favor of the all-too-easy "open source means many eyeballs and
    > > that is our QA" answer, which is a _good_ answer but by far not the most
    > > intelligent answer! Today "many eyeballs" is simply not good enough and
    > > nature (and other OS projects) will route us around if we dont change.
    > ..
    > QA-101 and "many eyeballs" are not at all in opposition.
    > The latter is how we find out about bugs on uncommon hardware,
    > and the former is what we need to track them and overall quality.
    > A HUGE problem I have with current "efforts", is that once someone
    > reports a bug, the onus seems to be 99% on the *reporter* to find
    > the exact line of code or commit. Ghad what a repressive method.

    99% on the reporter? Is that why I always try to understand the
    reporters problem (*provided* it's in an area I know about) and come
    up with a patch to test a theory or fix the issue?

    I'm _less_ inclined to provide such a "service" for lazy maintainers
    who've moved off into new and wonderfully exciting technologies, to
    churn out more patches for me to merge (and eventually provide a free
    to them bug fixing service for.)

    That's "less" inclined, not "won't".

    Russell King
    Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux -
    maintainer of:
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-11-13 20:47    [W:0.032 / U:16.440 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site