From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758527AbXFQJmF (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:42:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757496AbXFQJlz (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:41:55 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:1216 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753582AbXFQJly (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:41:54 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from; b=H/2pUgm/PV7sgykxNrQspgo317bgPoUewYXK89B3pSrk1pvQV+O1Sy21x54JvSivGLn/9tdZ5B6P/ubNw6sIOJ3insHG7RLLqVcTS3ib3fWlaXvZ8GCxA12Ka61dcSxt4See2rsZ62zxh6zHzoHw3k3fcKg+4qQpk7q4gL7u0rw= Message-ID: <467501D0.3090203@googlemail.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070419) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Bunk CC: Stefan Richter , Oleg Verych , Linus Torvalds , Andi Kleen , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Diego Calleja , Chuck Ebbert , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton Subject: [PATCH] (Re: regression tracking (Re: Linux 2.6.21)) References: <200704291849.23197.rjw@sisk.pl> <20070429173725.GB30248@one.firstfloor.org> <20070615234202.GP3588@stusta.de> <20070616013236.GA16016@flower.upol.cz> <4673D63D.5020804@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20070617004436.GU3588@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20070617004436.GU3588@stusta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michal Piotrowski Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, Adrian Bunk pisze: > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote: >> ... >> [Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm saying "too >> few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels".] > > Getting more people testing -rc kernels might be possible, and I don't > think it would be too hard. And not only FireWire would benefit from > this, remember e.g. that at least 2 out of the last 5 kernels Linus > released contained filesystem corruption regressions. > > The problem is that we aren't able to handle the many regression reports > we get today, so asking for more testing and regression reports today > would attack it at the wrong part of the chain. > > Additionally, every reported and unhandled regression will frustrate the > reporter - never forget that we have _many_ unhandled bug reports > (including but not limited to regression reports) where the submitter > spent much time and energy in writing a good bug report. > > If we somehow gain the missing manpower for debugging regressions we can > actively ask for more testing. Missing manpower (of people knowing some > part of the kernel well) for debugging bug reports is IMHO the one big > source of quality problems in the Linux kernel. If we get this solved, > things like getting more testers for -rc kernels will become low hanging > fruits. Adrian, I agree with _all_ your points. I bet that developers will hate me for this. Please consider for 2.6.23 Regards, Michal -- LOG http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/log/ Signed-off-by: Michal Piotrowski --- linux-work-clean/Documentation/SubmitChecklist 2007-06-17 11:18:37.000000000 +0200 +++ linux-work/Documentation/SubmitChecklist 2007-06-17 11:29:26.000000000 +0200 @@ -90,3 +90,8 @@ kernel patches. patch style checker prior to submission (scripts/checkpatch.pl). You should be able to justify all violations that remain in your patch. + + + +If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not fixed +in seven days, then the patch will be reverted.