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.
As a long time kernel tester, I see some problem with the newer "new development model". In the short merge windows, after to much time, there are to many patches. So there are problem to bisect bugs, and to have attention of developers. My impression is that in a week there are many more messages in lkml and to much bugs to be handled in these few days.
I've two proposal:
- better patch quality. I would like that every commit would compile. So an automatic commit test and public blames could increase the quality of first commits. [bisecting with non compilable point it is not a trivial task]
- a slow down the patch inclusion on the merge windows (aka: not to much big changes in the first days). As tester I prefer that some big changes would be included in a "secondary window" (pre o rc release), in an other period as the big patch rush.
ciao cate