[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: This is [Re:] How to improve the quality of the kernel[?].

    On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
    > I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
    > idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
    > one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions on that.

    Don't get me wrong, I wasn't actually responing to you personally, I was
    actually responding mostly to the tone of this thread.

    So I was responding to things like the example from Bartlomiej about
    missed opportunity for taking developer review into account (and btw, I
    think a little public shaming might not be a bad idea - I believe more in
    *social* rules than in *technical* rules), and I'm responding to some of
    the commentary by Adrian and others about "no regressions *ever*".

    These are things we can *wish* for. But the fact that we migth wish for
    them doesn't actually mean that they are really good ideas to aim for in

    Let me put it another way: a few weeks ago there was this big news story
    in the New York Times about how "forgetting" is a very essential part
    about remembering, and people passed this around as if it was a big
    revelation. People think that people with good memories have a "good

    And personally, I was like "Duh".

    Good memory is not about remembering everything. Good memory is about
    forgetting the irrelevant, so that the important stuff stands out and you
    *can* remember it. But the big deal is that yes, you have to forget stuff,
    and that means that you *will* miss details - but you'll hopefully miss
    the stuff you don't care for. The keyword being "hopefully". It works most
    of the time, but we all know we've sometimes been able to forget a detail
    that turned out to be crucial after all.

    So the *stupid* response to that is "we should remember everything". It
    misses the point. Yes, we sometimes forget even important details, but
    it's *so* important to forget details, that the fact that our brains
    occasionally forget things we later ended up needing is still *much*
    preferable to trying to remember everything.

    The same tends to be true of bug hunting, and regression tracking.

    There's a lot of "noise" there. We'll never get perfect, and I'll argue
    that if we don't have a system that tries to actively *remove* noise,
    we'll just be overwhelmed. But that _inevitably_ means that sometimes
    there was actually a signal in the noise that we ended up removing,
    because nobody saw it as anything but noise.

    So I think people should concentrate on turning "noise" into "clear
    signal", but at the same time remember that that inevitably is a "lossy"
    transformation, and just accept the fact that it will mean that we
    occasionally make "mistakes".

    This is why I've been advocating bugzilla "forget" stuff, for example. I
    tend to see bugzilla as a place where noise accumulates, rather than a
    place where noise is made into a signal.

    Which gets my to the real issue I have: the notion of having a process for
    _tracking_ all the information is actually totally counter-productive, if
    a big part of the process isn't also about throwing noise away.

    We don't want to "save" all the crud. I don't want "smart tracking" to
    keep track of everything. I want "smart forgetting", so that we are only
    left with the major signal - the stuff that matters.

    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: 2007-06-19 19:09    [W:0.024 / U:71.816 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site