| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:16:11 +0200 From: Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl> To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: arjan@...radead.org, bunk@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rjw@...k.pl, davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org Subject: Re: RFC: starting a kernel-testers group for newbies Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:03:38 -0700 Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> > wrote: >> I would argue instead that we don't know which bugs to fix first. > > How about "a bug which we just added"? And leave unfixed all the regressions introduced in earlier kernel versions and known at the time of the release of that version but still present in the current version? Not to mention all the other bugs reported by users of recent stable versions? > One which is repeatable. > Repeatable by a tester who is prepared to work with us on resolving it. That can be true for not-so-recently introduced bugs too. There are so many bugs out there and developers tend to focus on new ones leaving a lot of others unattended, both important and not so important ones. Which ones should someone focus on? Maybe on the ones that someone (helped) introduce him/herself. Maybe that should even sometimes be prioritized over introducing new bugs^W^W^Wdoing new development. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists