This message generated a parse failure. Raw output follows here. Please use 'back' to navigate. From devnull@lkml.org Fri Apr 26 12:10:15 2024 Delivery-date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:49:26 +0000 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754571AbYDPDs5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:48:57 -0400 Received: from mail.lang.hm ([64.81.33.126]:49333 "EHLO bifrost.lang.hm" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754435AbYDPDs4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:48:56 -0400 Received: from asgard.lang.hm (asgard.lang.hm [10.0.0.100]) by bifrost.lang.hm (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id m3G3lTj8021912; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:47:30 -0700 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:53:27 -0700 (PDT) From: david@lang.hm X-X-Sender: dlang@asgard To: David Newall Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Michael Kerrisk , James Morris , Al Viro , Andrew Morton , Willy Tarreau , Stephen Clark , Subject: Re: Reporting bugs and bisection In-Reply-To: <480565D3.6000100@davidnewall.com> Message-Id: References: <47FEADCB.7070104@rtr.ca> <517f3f820804150254w491cdf85s28f1d15696db8d96@mail.gmail.com> <4804B5D5.4090404@davidnewall.com> <200804152251.51308.rjw@sisk.pl> <480565D3.6000100@davidnewall.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Newall wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> Well, even if someone introduces bugs relatively frequently, but then also >> works with the reporters and fixes the bugs timely, it's about okay IMO. >> > This really is not okay. Even if bugs are fixed a version or two later, > the impact those bugs have on users makes the system look bad and drives > them away. We do not, I believe, want Linux to top the list for "most > bugs". It's unprofessional, unreliable and quite undesirable. timely frequently means the code was merged in -rc1/2 and was fixed before the final release of the same version. given the huge variety of hardware and workloads, it's just too easy for there to be cases where any trade-off you make (code size, performance, memory usage, common case definitions) can turn around and bite you. In addition frequently hardware doesn't work quite the way the design specs say that it should (completely ignoring the fact that many drivers are reverse engineered). what's most important is that when a case shows up it gets addressed promptly I'd rather have a developer/maintainer who introduces and fixed 100 bug, but fixes them promptly, as opposed to one who only introduces one bug, but refuses to consider fixing the code 'because they don't make mistakes like that' (usadly a common attitude from people who produce very good code much of the time) best of all is a developer/maintainer who writes very good code and is willing to accept the fact that they make mistakes and fixes the code promptly, but those people are extremely rare, and usually they emerge from the pool of people who make more mistakes and fix them promptly, which is an added reason I'm more tolerant of that group. David Lang -- 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/