lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next requirements

* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:

> > > Lets see. Over the last 60 days, I have reported 37 build errors. Of
> > > these, 16 were reported against x86, 14 against ppc, 7 against other
> > > archs.
> >
> > So only 43% of them were even relevant on the platform that 95+% of the
> > Linux testers use? Seems to support the points i made.
>
> Well, I hope you don't mean that because the majority of bug reporters (vs
> testers, the number of whom is unknown to me at least) use x86, we are free
> to break the other architectures. ;-)

It means exactly that: just like we 'can' break compilation with gcc296,
ancient versions of binutils, odd bootloaders, can break the boot via odd
hardware, etc. When someone uses that architectures then the 'easy' bugfixes
will actually flow in very quickly and without much fuss - and without
burdening developers to consider cases they have no good ways to test. Why
should rare architectures be more important than those other rare forms of
Linux usage?

In fact those rare ways of building and booting the kernel i mentioned are
probably used _more_ than half of the architectures that linux-next
build-tests ...

So yes, of course _all_ bugs need fixing if there's enough capacity, but the
process in general should be healthy, low-overhead and shouldnt concentrate on
an irrelevant portion of Linux usage in such a prominent way.

Or, if it does, it should _first_ cover the other, much more burning areas of
testing interest. All the while our _real_ bugreports are often rotting on
bugzilla.kernel.org ...

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-02-27 13:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans