On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:40:29 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote:

* Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Do you believe that our response to bug reports is adequate?

Do you feel that making us feel and look like shit helps?

That doesn't answer my question.

See, first we need to work out whether we have a problem.  If we do 
this, then we can then have a think about what to do about it.

I tried to convince the 2006 KS attendees that we have a problem and I 
resoundingly failed.  People seemed to think that we're doing OK.

We were a minority.

quoted

But it appears that data such as this contradicts that belief.

This is not a minor matter.  If the kernel _is_ slowly deteriorating 
then this won't become readily apparent until it has been happening 
for a number of years.  By that stage there will be so much work to do 
to get us back to an acceptable level that it will take a huge effort.  
And it will take a long time after that for the kerel to get its 
reputation back.

So it is important that we catch deterioration *early* if it is 
happening.

[agree with most of Ingo's moaning]

(and this is in no way directed at the networking folks - it holds for 
all of us. I have one main complaint about networking: the separate 
netdev list is a bad idea - networking regressions should be discussed 
and fixed on lkml, like most other subsystems are. Any artificial split 
of the lk discussion space is bad.)

but here I disagree.  LKML is already too busy and noisy.
Major subsystems need their own discussion areas.

---
~Randy