Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 7 Jan 1997 20:18:26 GMT | From | <> | Subject | RE: too much untested code in new kernels |
| |
William Burrow writes: > > It's clear that a volunteer effort with minimal funding can't be > > expected to deliver the sort of rigorous testing one hopes a major > > company would do but there are all too many posts to this list which, > > in effect, say "oh, silly me, make the ':' on line 102 a ';'". These > > are not subtle errors or problems of interaction but problems with > > typographical errors and misspelled variables, etc. > > Perhaps if the developers themselves do not have the time to go through > their own code or test it, a team of Linux dev testers could be formed? > The idea would be to stress, in particular, those sections of the kernel > that had been changed, rather than to attempt to use the kernel for > general use.
In a sense, anyone who runs the 2.1.xx tree is in the class of "Linux dev testers" but I agree that there is a need for people who have the resources to test the more complex hardware combinations for otherwise unapparent problems.
> > Before someone thinks I'm dumping this all in Linus' lap, I'm not. > > It's clear he's got his hands full and the rest of the developers need > > to take up the load he can't be expected to handle with the present > > demands on his time. > > Some seem to take a lackadaisical attitude towards these untested code > type bugs, but this type of bug can catch up to you later. Code that is > known to work at various stages may still break due to subtle > interactions later, but at least it isn't subtle interactions with broken > code.
Bingo! It makes the task of debugging legitimate problems (e.g., unexpected races) doubly difficult if the job also involves cleaning up typos and obvious errors.
Rick
|  |