| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1209645764.25560.547.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 13:42:44 +0100 From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jirislaby@...il.com, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Subject: Re: RFC: starting a kernel-testers group for newbies On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 07:15 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Maybe that's a "boggle" for you; but for me that's symptomatic of > where we are today: We don't make (effective) prioritization > decisions. Such decisions are hard, because it effectively means > telling people "I'm sorry but your bug is not yet important". It's not that clear-cut, either. Something which manifests itself as a build failure or an immediate test failure on m68k alone, might actually turn out to cause subtle data corruption on other platforms. You can't always know that it isn't important, just because it only shows up in some esoteric circumstances. You only really know how important it was _after_ you've fixed it. That obviously doesn't help us to prioritise. -- dwmw2 -- 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