From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758935AbYDJXGK (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:06:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755966AbYDJXFz (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:05:55 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:32786 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755965AbYDJXFy (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:05:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20080410.160555.89034540.davem@davemloft.net> To: jesper.juhl@gmail.com Cc: tilman@imap.cc, lkml@rtr.ca, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, jeff@garzik.org, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc8: FTP transfer errors From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <9a8748490804101602g5006db1eq8a192bf067112aeb@mail.gmail.com> References: <9a8748490804101509l5d043ff8w565dc44dfeaf0072@mail.gmail.com> <20080410.154651.101700010.davem@davemloft.net> <9a8748490804101602g5006db1eq8a192bf067112aeb@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: "Jesper Juhl" Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:02:35 +0200 > On 11/04/2008, David Miller wrote: > > From: "Jesper Juhl" > > Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:09:11 +0200 > > > > What people don't get is that this is a situation where the "end node > > principle" applies. When you have limited resources (here: > > developers) you don't push the bulk of the burdon upon them. Instead > > you push things out to the resource you have a lot of, the end nodes > > (here: users), so that the situation actually scales. > > > Again I can''t do anything but agree with you. You are right. When > it's possible to do the work this way everyone wins. > I was just trying to say that when it can't be done that way or the > user won't, then the bug report still has value and still deserves to > be taken seriously (although it probably goes lower in the pile than > the bugs where the end users actually do bisect or whatever). Absolutely. If, for example, someone has a clean OOPS I usually won't request a bisect, that's stupid. However if the OOPS is hard to diagnose, a bisect might be necessary still.