Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs

Andrew Morton
2007-11-13T21:04:26Z

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:00:30 +0100 (CET) Christian Kujau <lists@nerdbynature.de> wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I think that we're fairly good about working the regressions in
> > Adrian/Michal/Rafael's lists but once Linus releases 2.6.x we tend to let
> > the unsolved ones slide, and we don't pay as much attention to the
> > regressions which 2.6.x testers report.
>
> Can't we wait until all regressions[0] are fixed before releasing a new
> 2.6.x? I'd consider regressions a *literal* show stopper, and with this
> policy they just have be fixed, nothing would "slide"...
>

Problem is that everyone would then sit around pumping shiny new features
into their trees waiting until someone else fixes the regressions.

There are a number of process things we _could_ do. Like

- have bugfix-only kernel releases

- Just refuse to merge any non-bugfix patches for a subsystem when it is
determined that the subsystem has "too many" regressions.

- Create an "if you added a regression, you should fix some other bug
too" rule.

- probably other stuff.

But we can't/shouldn't do any of that until it is generally agreed that we
have a problem and that the problem is of sufficient magnitude that process
changes are needed to address it. We aren't at that stage yet.

Here's an important point: developers have a fixed amount of development
time. They spend some of that time fixing bugs and the rest of that time
on <otherstuff>. And while one could cook up all sorts of wonderful
process changes, they all would be aimed at a single thing: shifting some
of the developers' time away from <otherstuff> and onto bugfixing.

At this stage the only tool which is being deployed to attempt to bring
about that reprioritisation is suasion. aka "lkml flamewar".