Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

Mark Lord
2007-11-13T20:18:28Z

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".
>