>> Would you like to discuss the circumstances for the one glitch >> to which you might refer to? > > No need for discussion. I disagree to this view again. > It's difficult to recover a lost trust. I can follow this view to some degree. But I find that the current might point also other weaknesses out in the general software development process. > The best way is to show how you don't fall into the same issue any longer, Your expectations go into lower failure probabilities. But you might become disappointed again because of human work in general. > and it essentially means the actual testing of the patches. I find that corresponding progress depends then also on reasonable and accepted procedures from trusted test environments. > Now it's clear why the testing is demanded? I can follow your desire to some degree. > There is no other way. There are more (technical) possibilities to consider where development tools like a continuous integration system can help. Regards, Markus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
