On Nov 13, 2007 3:08 PM, Mark Lord [off-list ref] wrote:

Ingo Molnar wrote:
..

quoted

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.

Btw, I used to test every -mm kernel. But since I've switched distros
(gentoo->ubuntu)
and I have less time, I feel it's harder to test -rc or -mm kernels (I
know this isn't a lkml problem
but more a distro problem, but I would love having an ubuntu blessed
repo with current dev kernel
for the latest stable ubuntu release).

For debugging, maybe it's time someone does an amazon ec2+s3 service
to automate the bisecting
and create .deb/.rpm from git, I don't know how much it would cost though.

regards,

Benoit