[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: ALSA: nm256: Fine-tuning for three function implementations
On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:15:27 +0100,
SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > Because I didn't see any test result from you,
> This is correct so far.
> > so I can't trust you.
> This view did not hinder you to integrate some of my update suggestions
> which you found easier to handle.

The really trivial things are different. Don't mix up things.

> >> Which test configurations would you trust finally?
> >
> > Do test whatever like the users do.
> I find such an information too unsafe for an official acceptance test.

No-testing is the worst case.

> >> How can such descriptions improve the trust situation?
> >
> > It's the first step. At least then I can see you did some test.
> > Currently nothing. zero. nada.
> I am unsure if acceptable test results will ever be published for this
> software module.

Then forget about your patches.

> > How can I trust it?
> * Would you dare to inspect the shown source code adjustments again?

Not unless you give some testing results.

> * How do you think about to sort the remaining update candidates
> by their change size (or software age)?



 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-28 17:27    [W:0.147 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site