From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934162AbYD3WUu (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:20:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933503AbYD3WUM (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:20:12 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:34295 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761886AbYD3WUI (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:20:08 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 00:19:36 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, rjw@sisk.pl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! Message-ID: <20080430221936.GA27292@elte.hu> References: <20080430131537.1f7a0914.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080430135405.ddc42075.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080430.142137.236846072.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080430.142137.236846072.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Miller wrote: > > linux-next does little to address our two largest (IMO) problems: > > inadequate review and inadequate response to bug and regression > > reports. But those problems are harder to fix.. > > This is all about positive and negative reinforcement. > > The people who sit and git bisect their lives away to get the > regressions fixed need more positive reinforcement. And the people > who stick these regressions into the tree need more negative > reinforcement. What we need is not 'negative reinforcement'. That is just nasty, open warfare between isolated parties, expressed in a politically correct way. The core problem is that every maintainer has his own subjective, assymetric view and experience about this matter: to him his own tree is almost problem-free and most problems are very easy to fix, while other problems in other trees are nuisance that should never have been put upstream. Also, people get defensive when their regressions gets pointed out in anything but the most respectful and casual manner. For example, how on earth do i tell you that during the v2.6.24 merge window, half of all x86 test-machines for me and others were broken because they had no networking, for more than a week in a row? Are you surprised about this (true) experience we had? Do you feel insulted? Do you feel unfairly handled and slandered? The same goes in the other direction as well - you were just hit by scheduler tree related regressions that were only triggered on your 128-way sparc64, but not on our 64way x86 and smaller boxes. The thing is, what we really need is more cooperation and earlier integration - more people actually testing linux-next occasionally to see how things will look like in the next merge window. linux-next doing build tests is fine, but the nasty regressions that will hit your box can only be solved if _you_ boot linux-next at least once before the merge window opens. The regressions that will hit my box can only be avoided if i test your tree. hm? And can we please somehow talk about this without flaming each other in the process? Ingo