On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:40:29 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Do you believe that our response to bug reports is adequate? > > > > > > Do you feel that making us feel and look like shit helps? > > > > That doesn't answer my question. > > > > See, first we need to work out whether we have a problem. If we do > > this, then we can then have a think about what to do about it. > > > > I tried to convince the 2006 KS attendees that we have a problem and I > > resoundingly failed. People seemed to think that we're doing OK. We were a minority. > > But it appears that data such as this contradicts that belief. > > > > This is not a minor matter. If the kernel _is_ slowly deteriorating > > then this won't become readily apparent until it has been happening > > for a number of years. By that stage there will be so much work to do > > to get us back to an acceptable level that it will take a huge effort. > > And it will take a long time after that for the kerel to get its > > reputation back. > > > > So it is important that we catch deterioration *early* if it is > > happening. > [agree with most of Ingo's moaning] > (and this is in no way directed at the networking folks - it holds for > all of us. I have one main complaint about networking: the separate > netdev list is a bad idea - networking regressions should be discussed > and fixed on lkml, like most other subsystems are. Any artificial split > of the lk discussion space is bad.) but here I disagree. LKML is already too busy and noisy. Major subsystems need their own discussion areas. --- ~Randy - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
