From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765273AbYD3Vrm (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:47:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761184AbYD3Vrd (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:47:33 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:46703 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760950AbYD3Vrc (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:47:32 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: David Miller Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:47:12 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com References: <20080430131537.1f7a0914.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080430135405.ddc42075.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080430.142137.236846072.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20080430.142137.236846072.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804302347.13688.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, 30 of April 2008, David Miller wrote: > From: Andrew Morton > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:54:05 -0700 > > > 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. > > The current way of dealing with folks who stick broken crud into the > tree results in zero change in behvaior. > > People who insert the bum changes into the tree only really have one > core thing that they are sensitive to, their reputation. That's why > there is an enormous reluctance to even suggest reverts, it looks bad > for them and it also makes more work for them in the end. > > I guess what these folks are truly afraid of is that someone will > start tracking reverts and post their results in some presentation > at some big conference. I say that would be a good thing. To > be honest, hitting the revert button more aggressively and putting > the fear of being the "revert king" into everyone's minds might > really help with this problem. Well, probably ... > Currently there is no sufficient negative pushback on people who > insert broken crud into the tree. So it should be no surprise that it > continues. ... but that should also point at the trees through which the bugs are introduced. I mean, the maintainers should be more careful for what they take to their trees and push upstream. If that happens, they'll (hopefully) put some more pressure on patch submitters.