Re: [PATCH] Add rdc321x defconfig file

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:44:51AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > It is a simple equation: 10 additional defconfigs can give you more 
> > build coverage by additional people. Is it worth it?
> 
> i dont think it's worth it on x86, because it has no real meaning so it 
> will just be an arbitrary thing that deteriorates over time.
OK

> Subarchitectures on x86 are just a shortcut for the "0.1% of systems 
> that were lazy to be properly abstracted into the general PC code". We 
> are discouraging additional subarches and the one that got added 
> recently will go away soon. The rest is legacy.
So you say we would waste our time doing build test of the legacy
sub-archs. OK.

> 
> Really, we should concentrate our testing to where our _testers_ are and 
> where our developers are.
> 
> And according to lkml, http://kerneloops.org and a 300,000+ sample 
> http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html statistics, our 
> testers are distributed like this:
> 
>  - more than 90% of all kernel developers use general PC hardware
> 
>  - more than 95% of our active testers use general PC hardware
> 
>  - more than 99.1% of our distro users that are willing to send us
>    feedback use general PC hardware as well
> 
So I will try to concentrate more on non-PC stuff from now on to
increase the developer and tester base there. Seems we have plenty
of developers and testers to hack and test PC stuff.

> (In that aspect i dont count the million(s?) of non-x86 Linux based 
> phones as "a million users", unless they become an active part of our 
> ecosystem and do things like hook into kerneloops.org. It's that simple, 
> really.)

The "everything on lkml argument"...
At my current company I cannot name a single person that I think
would be able to follow lkml - sorry!

	Sam