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? 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". -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: - 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
