Ah, now you are arguing semantics. When somebody writes
something to improve the Linux kernel this makes them
part of the Linux kernel community. The project might
be a new file system or a tool to verify the consistency
of certain rules. The CHECKER people set out to make a
tool that finds
Joerg Pommnitz wrote:
> David Konerding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But the attitude that "many eyes make all bugs shallow" and "let the
> > users test the code for us" just don't hold up. For the former,
> > clearly, many eyes didn't find a lot of basically obvious bugs, for the
> >
David Konerding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But the attitude that "many eyes make all bugs shallow" and "let the
> users test the code for us" just don't hold up. For the former,
> clearly, many eyes didn't find a lot of basically obvious bugs, for the
> latter, it's just impolite.
You
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, J Sloan wrote:
> "Mohammad A. Haque" wrote:
>
> > David Konerding wrote:
> >
> > > And this is described in what release notes? It worked just fine on Red Hat
>7.0's 2.4
> > > kernel oh wait, I see that they fixed it before they released it.
> >
> > And hmm..gee ..
"Mohammad A. Haque" wrote:
> David Konerding wrote:
>
> > And this is described in what release notes? It worked just fine on Red Hat 7.0's
>2.4
> > kernel oh wait, I see that they fixed it before they released it.
>
> And hmm..gee .. did they bother contributing back the code?
Based on
> It's even worse that these are obvious, simple bugs (like the "NFS doesn't
> work over reiserfs
> because somebody changed the VFS layer and didn't fix any filesystems but
> ext2" that I reported a while ago) which would have been caught by a
> little testing.
Again people knew about this. It
David Konerding wrote:
> And this is described in what release notes? It worked just fine on Red Hat 7.0's
>2.4
> kernel oh wait, I see that they fixed it before they released it.
And hmm..gee .. did they bother contributing back the code?
--
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, David Konerding wrote:
> No, the point is that the linux developers should regression test
> their code BEFORE releasing it to the public as a version like
> "2.4.2".
I take it you're volunteering ?
Rik
--
Virtual memory is like a game you can't win;
However, without VM
Alan Cox wrote:
> > It's a bug in Linux 2.4.2, fixed in later versions. Regression/quality control
> > testing would
> > have caught this, but the developers usually just break things and wait for people
> > to complain
> > as their "Regression" testers.
>
> Hardly. We knew it was broken since
Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David Konerding wrote:
>
> > It's a bug in Linux 2.4.2, fixed in later versions.
> > Regression/quality control testing would have caught this, but the
> > developers usually just break things and wait for people to complain
> > as their "Regression"
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David Konerding wrote:
It's a bug in Linux 2.4.2, fixed in later versions.
Regression/quality control testing would have caught this, but the
developers usually just break things and wait for people to complain
as their "Regression" testers.
Alan Cox wrote:
It's a bug in Linux 2.4.2, fixed in later versions. Regression/quality control
testing would
have caught this, but the developers usually just break things and wait for people
to complain
as their "Regression" testers.
Hardly. We knew it was broken since well before
David Konerding wrote:
And this is described in what release notes? It worked just fine on Red Hat 7.0's
2.4
kernel oh wait, I see that they fixed it before they released it.
And hmm..gee .. did they bother contributing back the code?
--
It's even worse that these are obvious, simple bugs (like the "NFS doesn't
work over reiserfs
because somebody changed the VFS layer and didn't fix any filesystems but
ext2" that I reported a while ago) which would have been caught by a
little testing.
Again people knew about this. It was a
"Mohammad A. Haque" wrote:
David Konerding wrote:
And this is described in what release notes? It worked just fine on Red Hat 7.0's
2.4
kernel oh wait, I see that they fixed it before they released it.
And hmm..gee .. did they bother contributing back the code?
Based on their
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, J Sloan wrote:
"Mohammad A. Haque" wrote:
David Konerding wrote:
And this is described in what release notes? It worked just fine on Red Hat
7.0's 2.4
kernel oh wait, I see that they fixed it before they released it.
And hmm..gee .. did they bother
David Konerding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the attitude that "many eyes make all bugs shallow" and "let the
users test the code for us" just don't hold up. For the former,
clearly, many eyes didn't find a lot of basically obvious bugs, for the
latter, it's just impolite.
You
Joerg Pommnitz wrote:
David Konerding [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the attitude that "many eyes make all bugs shallow" and "let the
users test the code for us" just don't hold up. For the former,
clearly, many eyes didn't find a lot of basically obvious bugs, for the
latter, it's
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David Konerding wrote:
> It's a bug in Linux 2.4.2, fixed in later versions.
> Regression/quality control testing would have caught this, but the
> developers usually just break things and wait for people to complain
> as their "Regression" testers.
As said before, we're
> It's a bug in Linux 2.4.2, fixed in later versions. Regression/quality control
> testing would
> have caught this, but the developers usually just break things and wait for people
> to complain
> as their "Regression" testers.
Hardly. We knew it was broken since well before 2.4.0. It just got
Good day, all,
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Jason Madden wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David E. Weekly wrote:
>
> > On Linux 2.4.2, running a "mount -o loop" on a file properly created with
> > "dd if=/dev/zero of=/path/to/my/file.img count=1024" seems to decide to
> > freeze up my shell (not my
It's a bug in Linux 2.4.2, fixed in later versions. Regression/quality control
testing would
have caught this, but the developers usually just break things and wait for people
to complain
as their "Regression" testers.
Jason Madden wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David E. Weekly wrote:
>
> > On
Jason Madden wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David E. Weekly wrote:
>
> > On Linux 2.4.2, running a "mount -o loop" on a file properly created with
> > "dd if=/dev/zero of=/path/to/my/file.img count=1024" seems to decide to
> > freeze up my shell (not my system). An strace showed the lockup
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David E. Weekly wrote:
> On Linux 2.4.2, running a "mount -o loop" on a file properly created with
> "dd if=/dev/zero of=/path/to/my/file.img count=1024" seems to decide to
> freeze up my shell (not my system). An strace showed the lockup happening at
> the actual system
On Linux 2.4.2, running a "mount -o loop" on a file properly created with
"dd if=/dev/zero of=/path/to/my/file.img count=1024" seems to decide to
freeze up my shell (not my system). An strace showed the lockup happening at
the actual system "mount()" call, which never returns.
Since mount() is
On Linux 2.4.2, running a "mount -o loop" on a file properly created with
"dd if=/dev/zero of=/path/to/my/file.img count=1024" seems to decide to
freeze up my shell (not my system). An strace showed the lockup happening at
the actual system "mount()" call, which never returns.
Since mount() is
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David E. Weekly wrote:
On Linux 2.4.2, running a "mount -o loop" on a file properly created with
"dd if=/dev/zero of=/path/to/my/file.img count=1024" seems to decide to
freeze up my shell (not my system). An strace showed the lockup happening at
the actual system
It's a bug in Linux 2.4.2, fixed in later versions. Regression/quality control
testing would
have caught this, but the developers usually just break things and wait for people
to complain
as their "Regression" testers.
Jason Madden wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David E. Weekly wrote:
On
Jason Madden wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David E. Weekly wrote:
On Linux 2.4.2, running a "mount -o loop" on a file properly created with
"dd if=/dev/zero of=/path/to/my/file.img count=1024" seems to decide to
freeze up my shell (not my system). An strace showed the lockup happening at
Good day, all,
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Jason Madden wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David E. Weekly wrote:
On Linux 2.4.2, running a "mount -o loop" on a file properly created with
"dd if=/dev/zero of=/path/to/my/file.img count=1024" seems to decide to
freeze up my shell (not my system). An
It's a bug in Linux 2.4.2, fixed in later versions. Regression/quality control
testing would
have caught this, but the developers usually just break things and wait for people
to complain
as their "Regression" testers.
Hardly. We knew it was broken since well before 2.4.0. It just got a
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, David Konerding wrote:
It's a bug in Linux 2.4.2, fixed in later versions.
Regression/quality control testing would have caught this, but the
developers usually just break things and wait for people to complain
as their "Regression" testers.
As said before, we're
32 matches
Mail list logo
