Message-ID: <473A067F.3090007@rtr.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:18:07 -0500
From: Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, 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 <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs
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> <20071113193750.GD1356@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20071113193750.GD1356@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2190
Lines: 48

Russell King wrote:
> 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?
..

Same here.

I just find it weird that something can be known broken for several -rc*
kernels before I happen to install it, discover it's broken on my own machine,
and then I track it down, fix it, and submit the patch, generally all within a
couple of hours.  Where the heck was the dude(ess) that broke it ??  AWOL.

And when I receive hostility from the "maintainers" of said code for fixing
their bugs, well.. that really motivates me to continue reporting new ones..

> 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".
> 

-
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/