linux-kernel - Re: Tracking and crediting bug reporters

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]

Message-ID: <84144f020805210646w5eeaef22r2c3e88afa366f42b@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 21 May 2008 16:46:22 +0300
From:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To:	"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@...urebad.de>
Cc:	"Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>, "Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Tracking and crediting bug reporters

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...urebad.de> wrote:
> I would more argue to remove Tested-by completely because it does not
> tell much.  Code is not bugfree just because someone compiled and ran
> it.  And if it breaks on some other systems later on, what does it help
> if you know someone tested it?  It still breaks.  And you can not even
> blame the tester because of his luck of a working configuration.

Tested-by is really helpful for identifying potential testers when you
change some part of the kernel. I use git history to identify people
who are able/willing to test NUMA changes to the slab allocators that
require a big ass NUMA box to trigger a bug, for example. Also, in
some cases, testing a bug fix is not trivial and might require a lot
of work that we should give credit for.
--
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/