Re: Linux 2.6.21

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 01:33:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > 
> > The kernel Bugzilla currently contains 1600 open bugs.
> 
> Adrian, why do you keep harping on this, and ignoring reality?
> 
> Kernel bugzilla has 1600 open bugs BECAUSE IT SUCKS.

OK, how do you suggest to track bugs in a way that doesn't suck?

Bug reports to linux-kernel have the big problem that they are lost if 
no developer immediately picks them up.

> How many of those are interesting and valid? How many of them are 
> relevant? How many of them are duplicates?
> 
> You don't know. Nobody does. So why do you bother reporting that number?

What I do know is that the majority of them has never been proper 
debugged by a kernel developer knowing the subsystem in question.

> That number is exactly as relevant as the number of dog-hairs on our couch 
> ("in the millions"). An impressively large number, definitely uncountable, 
> and definitely also not relevant to anythign at all. Not at all unlike 
> that "1600 open bugs" number that you bring up.
> 
> Do you think the number of dog-hairs on our couch is an argument for or 
> against people trying to track regressions? If not, why do you keep 
> bringing up bugzilla?

I tracked 2.6.21-rc regressions, and I do not scale for higher numbers 
of bugs. When I had to track 36 known regressions it was a real 
nightmare.

Bugzilla tracks regressions and scales for higher numbers of bugs.

Let me ask you two questions:
- Do you think regression tracking makes any sense at all?
- If yes, which scalable way of regression tracking would in your
  opinion not suck?

> 		Linus

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