From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: Reporting bugs and bisection Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:39:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20080414053943.GU9785@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <47FEADCB.7070104@rtr.ca> <20080413121831.d89dd424.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080413202118.GA29658@2ka.mipt.ru> <200804132233.50491.rjw@sisk.pl> <20080413205406.GA9190@2ka.mipt.ru> <48028830.6020703@earthlink.net> <20080414043939.GA6862@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: david@lang.hm, Stephen Clark , Evgeniy Polyakov , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , Tilman Schmidt , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Mark Lord , David Miller , jesper.juhl@gmail.com, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel , git@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Willy Tarreau X-From: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 14 07:41:27 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: linux-netdev-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JlHRX-0006fr-0F for linux-netdev-2@gmane.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:41:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753081AbYDNFkn (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:40:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753011AbYDNFkn (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:40:43 -0400 Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:57557 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752929AbYDNFkm (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:40:42 -0400 Received: from viro by ZenIV.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.63 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1JlHPr-0005Hf-LC; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:39:43 +0100 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080414043939.GA6862@1wt.eu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 06:39:39AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: [snip] > I'm sure many people would find this useless (or in fact reject the > idea because it would show that most code will be rated 1 or 2), > but I really think it can help subsystem maintainers make the relation > between a reported bug and a possible submitter. I have a related proposal: let us require all patches to be stamped with Discordian *and* Eternal September dates. In triplicate. While we are at it, why don't we introduce new mandatory headers like, say it, X-checkpatch: {Yes,No} X-checkpatch-why-not: X-pointless: X-arbitrary-rules-added-to-CodingStyle: (should be present if and only if X-pointless: 69 is present). Come to think of that, we clearly need a new file in Documentation/*, documenting such headers. Why don't we organize a subcommittee^Wnew maillist devoted to that? That would provide another entry route for contributors, lowering the overall entry barriers even further... Seriously, looks like Andi is right - we've got ourselves a developing beaurocracy. As in "more and more ways of generating activity without doing anything even remotely useful". Complete with tendency to operate in the ways that make sense only to beaurocracy in question and an ever-growing set of bylaws...