[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Tracking regressions for next release(s)
    On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 06:47:17PM +0200, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
    > Hi,
    > On piątek, 23 marca 2012 o 11:14:31 Borislav Petkov wrote:
    > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 07:01:19AM +0100, Maciej Rutecki wrote:
    > > > I am interested in the opinion of the developers, testers, and
    > > > everyone involved in the development of the kernel, if they thing that
    > > > tracking regressions and monitoring the quality makes sense,
    > >
    > > Absolutely.
    > >
    > > > especially since I met several times (put it mildly) dislike of such
    > > > work and the bugs are repaired relatively slowly.
    > >
    > > I can imagine people getting cranky when someone points out that there's
    > > a "boring" bug they need to fix instead of them working on the cool new
    > > feature they have thought of. It is the same old story we've been having
    > > since forever: people don't really love to fix bugs, especially if the
    > > code works for them and the bug doesn't appear on their boxes.
    > >
    > > > Perhaps someone has comments or proposals for change (in the way of
    > > > work or me).
    > >
    > > Yeah, we need a big bad assh*le :) who screams at everyone until their
    > > bugs is fixed.
    > >
    > > But serioulsy, this hasn't changed: we definitely need a regression
    > > list, I think it works even better when Linus goes over it and says
    > > this is fixed, that is this commit, etc. because he pulls all the trees
    > > in the end, ... so yeah, I think what you guys are doing is good and
    > > important.
    > >
    > > It would be even cooler if this list be expanded also to regressions in
    > > kernel performance which people have noticed from running benchmarks on
    > > different -rcs and have noticed differences there, maybe a website (not
    > > bugzilla) which lists all those regressions for interested parties to
    > > fix in addition to the LKML mails..., etc...
    > >
    > > Thanks for your hard work, btw.
    > Borislav, Bjorn Helgaas: thank you for the answer, but observing the
    > reactions I get the impression that tracking the regression is not likely
    > anyone's interest. In addition - especially on the last release cycle -
    > sometimes encountered difficulties in cooperation on this topic with developers:
    > ignoring request to update the status of the regression, or even add your e-
    > mail to bugzilla.

    Well, sounds like you've already decided and that's just sad :(. Let's
    add some more people to Cc, see what they think.

    Guys, thread starts here:

    > I give up tracking the regression, but not the kernel testing. Even now I have
    > a few hours per week more for it.

    Well, if you still can report your results from it, I think maintainers
    who are still interested in the quality of their code will be interested
    in your testing reports.

    Thanks again for your work.

    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: 2012-03-26 21:01    [W:0.024 / U:31.736 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site