lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Slow DOWN, please!!!


    On Thu, 1 May 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
    >
    > > I do _not_ want to slow down development by setting some kind of "quality
    > > bar" - but I do believe that we should keep our quality high, not because
    > > of any hoops we need to jump through, but because we take pride in the
    > > thing we do.
    >
    > Well, we certainly should, but do we always remeber about it? Honest, guv?

    Hey, guv, do you _honestly_ believe that some kind of ISO-9000-like
    process generates quality?

    And I dislike how people try to conflate "quality" and "merging speed" as
    if there was any reason what-so-ever to believe that they are related.

    You (and Andrew) have tried to argue that slowing things down results in
    better quality, and I simply don't for a moment believe that. I believe
    the exact opposite.

    The way to get good quality is not to put barriers up in front of
    developers, but totally the reverse - by helping them. And yes, that help
    can quite possibly be in the form of "process" - by making things more
    streamlined, and by having people not have to waste time on wondering
    where they should send things etc.

    But the notion that we should even _try_ to aim to slow things down, that
    one I find unlikely to be true, and I don't even understand why anybody
    would find it a logical goal?

    Of course, you will have fewer new bugs if you have fewer changes. But
    that's not a goal, that's a tautology and totally uninteresting. A small
    program is likely to have fewer bugs, but that doesn't make something
    small "better" than something large that does more.

    Similarly, a stagnant development community will introduce new bugs more
    seldom. But does that make a stagnant one better than a virbrant one? Hell
    no.

    So what I'm arguing against here is not that we should aim for worse
    quality, but I'm arguing against the false dichotomy of believing that
    quality is incompatible with lots of change.

    So if we can get the discussion *away* from the "let's slow things down",
    then I'm interested. Because at that point we don't have to fight made-up
    arguments about something irrelevant.

    Linus


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-05-01 03:23    [W:0.021 / U:63.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site