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".