linux-kernel - Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:04:56 +0100
From:	"Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
To:	"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@....utfsm.cl>
Cc:	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...l.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...l.org>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@...sta.de>
Subject: Re: A proposal; making 2.6.20 a bugfix only version.

On 10/11/06, Horst H. von Brand <vonbrand@....utfsm.cl> wrote:
> Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com> wrote:
> > On 08/11/06, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > > There's no shortage of issues that need fixing, but since we keep
> > > > merging new stuff, a lot of bugfixing energy gets spend on the new
> > > > cool stuff instead of fixing up any other issues we have.
> > >
> > > but if you do this you just end up with a bigger backlog so that the
> > > next one will even be more unstable due to a extreme high change rate.
>
> > Only if people continue to work on new stuff during the "bug fixing only"
> > cycle.  If we manage to get everyone focused on bug fixing only for the
> > entire cycle the backlog won't be growing (much).
>
> Sorry, won't work. People working on shiny new toys will just put off
> sending in their patches for a cycle, and the usual bugfixers will likewise
> just go on doing their stuff.
>
> > > > Coverity has, as of this writing, identified 728 issues in the current
> > > > kernel. Sure, some of those have already been identified as false or
> > > > ignorable issues, but many are flagged as actual bugs and still more
> > > > are as yet uninspected.
>
> > > most are mostly false. And the rest is getting looked at. What's the
> > > problem?
>
> > Yes, MANY are false, and I know the rest are getting worked at, I work on
> > some myself when time permits.  I mentioned it simply as an indicator
> > (one amongst many) that we have a lot of known unfixed issues.
>
> OK, lead by example: Do put off new work and work just on fixing things for
> a while. Collect bug reports and make them useful for would-be-fixers. Etc.

I try. Unfortunately I don't have nearly as much time as I would like,
to work on the kernel, but when I do have time I try to fix bugs. If
you look through the mailing list archives you will see that I try to
fix bugs/buglets most of the time and I find these by combing through
the coverity database, bugzilla, the mailing list, logs of test builds
of new kernels etc etc...
I don't maintain lists of unfixed bugs. I would love to do so, but I
lack the time to do it properly.

-- 
Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...il.com>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please      http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/