[BUG] New Kernel Bugs

Benoit Boissinot bboissin at gmail.com
Tue Nov 13 10:52:32 EST 2007

On Nov 13, 2007 3:08 PM, Mark Lord <liml at rtr.ca> 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.

Btw, I used to test every -mm kernel. But since I've switched distros
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.



More information about the linux-pcmcia mailing list