Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759140AbXFQMpH (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:45:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752380AbXFQMoz (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:44:55 -0400 Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:37426 "EHLO mailhub.stusta.mhn.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752190AbXFQMoy (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 08:44:54 -0400 Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:45:08 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Michal Piotrowski Cc: Stefan Richter , Oleg Verych , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Diego Calleja , Chuck Ebbert , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH] (Re: regression tracking (Re: Linux 2.6.21)) Message-ID: <20070617124508.GV3588@stusta.de> References: <200704291849.23197.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070429173725.GB30248@one.firstfloor.org> <20070615234202.GP3588@stusta.de> <20070616013236.GA16016@flower.upol.cz> <4673D63D.5020804@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20070617004436.GU3588@stusta.de> <467501D0.3090203@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <467501D0.3090203@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2492 Lines: 61 On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:41:36AM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote: > Hi all, > > Adrian Bunk pisze: >> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: >>> ... >>> [Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm saying "too >>> few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels".] >> Getting more people testing -rc kernels might be possible, and I don't >> think it would be too hard. And not only FireWire would benefit from this, >> remember e.g. that at least 2 out of the last 5 kernels Linus released >> contained filesystem corruption regressions. >> The problem is that we aren't able to handle the many regression reports >> we get today, so asking for more testing and regression reports today >> would attack it at the wrong part of the chain. >> Additionally, every reported and unhandled regression will frustrate the >> reporter - never forget that we have _many_ unhandled bug reports >> (including but not limited to regression reports) where the submitter >> spent much time and energy in writing a good bug report. >> If we somehow gain the missing manpower for debugging regressions we can >> actively ask for more testing. Missing manpower (of people knowing some >> part of the kernel well) for debugging bug reports is IMHO the one big >> source of quality problems in the Linux kernel. If we get this solved, >> things like getting more testers for -rc kernels will become low hanging >> fruits. > > Adrian, I agree with _all_ your points. > > I bet that developers will hate me for this. > > Please consider for 2.6.23 Fine with me, but: There are not so simple cases like big infrastructure patches with 20 other patches in the tree depending on it causing a regression, or even worse, a big infrastructure patch exposing a latent old bug in some completely different area of the kernel. And we should be aware that reverting is only a workaround for the real problem which lies in our bug handling. > Regards, > Michal >... cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - 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/