On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Newall wrote:
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
quoted
Well, even if someone introduces bugs relatively frequently, but then also
works with the reporters and fixes the bugs timely, it's about okay IMO.
This really is not okay. Even if bugs are fixed a version or two later,
the impact those bugs have on users makes the system look bad and drives
them away. We do not, I believe, want Linux to top the list for "most
bugs". It's unprofessional, unreliable and quite undesirable.
timely frequently means the code was merged in -rc1/2 and was fixed before
the final release of the same version.
given the huge variety of hardware and workloads, it's just too easy for
there to be cases where any trade-off you make (code size, performance,
memory usage, common case definitions) can turn around and bite you. In
addition frequently hardware doesn't work quite the way the design specs
say that it should (completely ignoring the fact that many drivers are
reverse engineered). what's most important is that when a case shows up it
gets addressed promptly
I'd rather have a developer/maintainer who introduces and fixed 100 bug,
but fixes them promptly, as opposed to one who only introduces one bug,
but refuses to consider fixing the code 'because they don't make mistakes
like that' (usadly a common attitude from people who produce very
good code much of the time)
best of all is a developer/maintainer who writes very good code and is
willing to accept the fact that they make mistakes and fixes the code
promptly, but those people are extremely rare, and usually they emerge
from the pool of people who make more mistakes and fix them promptly,
which is an added reason I'm more tolerant of that group.
David Lang