On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:08:32AM -0500, Mark Lord 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.

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".

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of: