linux-kernel - Re: This is [Re:] How to improve the quality of the kernel[?].

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

Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:56:49 +0200
From:	Oleg Verych <olecom@...wer.upol.cz>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, Martin Bligh <mbligh@...igh.org>,
	Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>,
	"Fortier,Vincent [Montreal]" <Vincent.Fortier1@...gc.ca>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>,
	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: This is [Re:] How to improve the quality of the kernel[?].

* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:50:48 +0200
> 
> [...]
>> Current identification of problems and patch association
>> have completely zero level of tracking or automation, while Bugzilla is
>> believed by somebody to have positive efficiency in bug tracking.
>
> I, as maintainer of a small subsystem, can personally track bug--patch
> relationships with bugzilla just fine, on its near-zero level of
> automation and integration.
>
> Nevertheless, would a more integrated bug/patch tracking system help me
> improve quality of my output? ---
> a) Would it save me more time than it costs me to fit into the system
>    (time that can be invested in actual debugging)?
>    This can only be answered after trying it.

I'm not a wizard, if i will answer now: "No." [1:]

[1:] Your User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070509 SeaMonkey/1.1.2

> b) Would it help me to spot mistakes in patches before I submit?
>    No.

If you ever tried to report bug with reportbug tool in Debian, you may
understand what i meant. Nothing can substitute intelligence. Something
can reduce impact of laziness (of searching relevant bugreports).

> c) Would I get quicker feedback from testers?
>    That depends on whether such a system attracts testers and helps
>    testers to work efficiently.  This is also something that can only be
>    speculated about without trying it.
>
> The potential testers that I deal with are mostly either very
> non-technical persons, or persons which are experienced in their
> hardware/application area but *not* in kernel internals and kernel
> development procedures.

They also don't bother subscribing to mailing lists and like to write
blogs. I'm not sure about hw databases you talked about, i will talk
about gathering information from testers.

Debian have experimental and unstable branches, people willing to have
new stuff are likely to have this, and not testing or stable. BTS just
collects bugreports <http://bugs.debian.org/>. If kernel team uploads new
kernel (release or even rc recently), interested people will use it after
next upgrade. Bug reports get collected, but main answer will be, try
reproduce on most recent kernel.org's one. Here, what i have proposed,
may play role you expect. Mis-configuration/malfunctioning, programmer's
error (Linus noted) in organized manner may easily join reporting person
to kernel.org's testing. On driver or small sub-system level this may
work. Again it's all about information, not intelligence.
____
-
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/