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: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:41:38 -0400 From: Stephen Clark <sclark46@...thlink.net> To: david@...g.hm CC: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>, Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jesper.juhl@...il.com, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, jeff@...zik.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, git@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Reporting bugs and bisection david@...g.hm wrote: > On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, David Newall wrote: > >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> Well, even if someone introduces bugs relatively frequently, but then >>> also >>> works with the reporters and fixes the bugs timely, it's about okay IMO. >>> >> This really is not okay. Even if bugs are fixed a version or two later, >> the impact those bugs have on users makes the system look bad and drives >> them away. We do not, I believe, want Linux to top the list for "most >> bugs". It's unprofessional, unreliable and quite undesirable. > > timely frequently means the code was merged in -rc1/2 and was fixed > before the final release of the same version. > > given the huge variety of hardware and workloads, it's just too easy for > there to be cases where any trade-off you make (code size, performance, > memory usage, common case definitions) can turn around and bite you. In > addition frequently hardware doesn't work quite the way the design specs > say that it should (completely ignoring the fact that many drivers are > reverse engineered). what's most important is that when a case shows up > it gets addressed promptly > > I'd rather have a developer/maintainer who introduces and fixed 100 bug, > but fixes them promptly, as opposed to one who only introduces one bug, > but refuses to consider fixing the code 'because they don't make > mistakes like that' (u.sadly a common attitude from people who produce > very good code much of the time) > > best of all is a developer/maintainer who writes very good code and is > willing to accept the fact that they make mistakes and fixes the code > promptly, but those people are extremely rare, and usually they emerge > from the pool of people who make more mistakes and fix them promptly, > which is an added reason I'm more tolerant of that group. > > David Lang > Having been a Linux user since the late 90's the problem I see is that developers decide to re-design stuff that is already working and then things that used to work don't work anymore. Libata is a good example. I had an older laptop that eventually got working again - but the old ide stuff wasn't studied enough to find out what had to be brought forward and supported in libata. Regards, Steve -- "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin) "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." (Thomas Jefferson) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists