Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762850AbXKMTn5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:43:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762631AbXKMTn2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:43:28 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:35807 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762122AbXKMTn1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:43:27 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:37:50 +0000 From: Russell King To: Mark Lord Cc: Ingo Molnar , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, protasnb@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, Andrew Morton , David Miller Subject: Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs Message-ID: <20071113193750.GD1356@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Lord , Ingo Molnar , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-pcmcia@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, protasnb@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, Andrew Morton , David Miller References: <20071113031553.3c7b5c16.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071113.033946.114918709.davem@davemloft.net> <20071113034916.2556edd7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071113.035824.40509981.davem@davemloft.net> <20071113041259.79c9a8c5.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20071113134029.GA30978@elte.hu> <4739AFE0.20705@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4739AFE0.20705@rtr.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1757 Lines: 39 On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:08:32AM -0500, Mark Lord wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > .. > > This is all QA-101 that _cannot be argued against on a rational basis_, > > it's just that these sorts of things have been largely ignored for > > years, in favor of the all-too-easy "open source means many eyeballs and > > that is our QA" answer, which is a _good_ answer but by far not the most > > intelligent answer! Today "many eyeballs" is simply not good enough and > > nature (and other OS projects) will route us around if we dont change. > .. > > QA-101 and "many eyeballs" are not at all in opposition. > The latter is how we find out about bugs on uncommon hardware, > and the former is what we need to track them and overall quality. > > A HUGE problem I have with current "efforts", is that once someone > reports a bug, the onus seems to be 99% on the *reporter* to find > the exact line of code or commit. Ghad what a repressive method. 99% on the reporter? Is that why I always try to understand the reporters problem (*provided* it's in an area I know about) and come up with a patch to test a theory or fix the issue? I'm _less_ inclined to provide such a "service" for lazy maintainers who've moved off into new and wonderfully exciting technologies, to churn out more patches for me to merge (and eventually provide a free to them bug fixing service for.) That's "less" inclined, not "won't". -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: - 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/