* Matthias Andree:
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> From a vendor POV, the lack of official kernel.org advisories may be a
>> feature. I find it rather disturbing, and I'm puzzled that the kernel
>> developer community doesn't view this a problem. I know I'm alone,
>
> You're not alone in viewing this as a problem,
I know, it's a typo.
> How about the Signed-off-by: lines? Those people who pass on the changes
> also pass on the bugs, and they are responsible for the code - not only
> license-wise, but also quality-wise. That's the latest point where
> regression tests MUST happen.
There are critical kernel parts for which automated regression testing
is very hard. In some twisted sense, regression testing ist best done
by those who run real applications, i.e. end users. The interesting
thing is that you end up with reasonably stable software this way,
except in a few corner cases.
The main point of debate seems to be how relevant the corner cases
are, and how much general kernel development should care about them.
(And no, not everyone in such a corner has $$,$$$ to spend.)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
