linux-kernel - Re: FRV-setup: Clarification for "source code clean-up"?

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:   Fri, 21 Oct 2016 12:27:30 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FRV-setup: Clarification for "source code clean-up"?

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 11:11:54AM +0200, SF Markus Elfring wrote:
> > It's all about ratios...  Each clean up patch has chance of introducing
> > a bug.
> 
> Each update suggestion contains a possibility for mistakes.
> 

Yes.  But bug fix patches make up for it by fixing stuff.

> 
> > If you only send clean up patches then you only introduce bugs.
> 
> I find such a conclusion questionable with the wording "only".
> 

How are you going to fix bugs if you only send clean ups?

> 
> > We really don't want people sending patches if they introduce more bugs
> > than they fix.
> 
> How do you think about to discuss corresponding software development
> statistics in more detail?

I think normal developers should fix 10 bugs or add a few features for
every regression they introduce.  I introduced a regression just last
week, so that's a normal part of life, but I was at least *trying* to
fix a bug when I did it.

regards,
dan carpenter