[LWN Logo]
From:	 Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>
To:	 Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: Kernel Panic on 2.5.6 and 2.5.7-pre1 boot [PATCH] and discussion of Linux testing procedures
Date:	 Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:57:23 +0100
Cc:	 Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,

Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Hans Reiser wrote:
>>I would encourage requiring that every patch sent to Linus have two
>>signatures on it, one indicating that the author has tested it and
>>another indicating what second person has tested it.
> Agreed. Linus and Marcelo are very busy and shouldn't be
> bothered with untested patches.  If we only send them
> known-good stuff their lives should get a little bit
> easier.

You don't understand by accident that sometimes blind untested
changes serve the purpose of hinting at API changes in
areas where once doesn't have the slightest opportunity
of testing? Just simple count how many FS there are out there
and you should see that there is no chance for "quality"
testing before submission of advancements there.

Breakage is the price you have to pay for advancements.

(I'm not arguing over the particular case in quesiton here.
I'm just arguing over the proposal.)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/