Hi Adrian,
I think you don't understand me. I do report bugs and will always
do. The point was that developers could be "assured" there is possibly
no problem when people do NOT report bugs in that piece of code
because they would know that it _was_ tested by 1000 people on 357 different
HW's. An
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 08:45:16PM +0200, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
Hi Martin,
> well, the idea was to give you a clue how many people did NOT complain
> because it either worked or they did not realize/care. The goal
> was different. For example, I have 2 computers and both need curre
Hi Adrian,
well, the idea was to give you a clue how many people did NOT complain
because it either worked or they did not realize/care. The goal
was different. For example, I have 2 computers and both need current acpi
patch to work fine. I went to bugzilla and found nobody has filed such bugs
b
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 19:05 +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Indeed, and the purpose of the benchmark is to quantify something rather than
> leave it to subjective feeling. Fortunately if I was to quantify the current
> kernel's situation I would say everything is fine.
Agreed. Unfortunately everyth
I gmane.linux.kernel, skrev Blaisorblade:
> Forgot drivers testing? That is where most of the bugs are hidden, and where
> wide user testing is definitely needed because of the various hardware bugs
> and different configurations existing in real world.
A way that could raise the testing upon
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 01:34 pm, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> > > Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
> > > scheduler related interactivity regressions.
> >
> > I doubt that _any_ o
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:15:14PM -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:07 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
> >
> >>I will get flames for this, but my laptop boots faster and sometimes
> >>responds faster in 2.4.27 than in 2.6.12. Sorry, but this is th
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
scheduler related interactivity regressions.
I doubt that _any_ of the regressions that are user-visible are
scheduler-related. They all tend to be disk IO issu
Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 21:15 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
OK, I will, but I first of all need to learn how to tell if benchmarks
are better or worse.
Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
scheduler related interactivity regressions. It ce
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:31 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lee Revell wrote:
> >
> > Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
> > scheduler related interactivity regressions.
>
> I doubt that _any_ of the regressions that are user-visible are
> sched
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 21:15 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
> OK, I will, but I first of all need to learn how to tell if benchmarks
> are better or worse.
Con's interactivity benchmark looks quite promising for finding
scheduler related interactivity regressions. It certainly has confirmed
what
Lee Revell wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:07 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
I will get flames for this, but my laptop boots faster and sometimes
responds faster in 2.4.27 than in 2.6.12. Sorry, but this is the fact
for me. IBM T42.
Sorry dude, but there's just no way that any autom
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 20:07 -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
> I will get flames for this, but my laptop boots faster and sometimes
> responds faster in 2.4.27 than in 2.6.12. Sorry, but this is the fact
> for me. IBM T42.
Sorry dude, but there's just no way that any automated process can catch
t
Blaisorblade wrote:
Adrian Bunk stusta.de> writes:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:40:43PM -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
How do we know that something is OK or wrong? just by the fact that
it works or not, it doesn't mean like is OK.
There has to be a process for any user to be able
David Lang wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
IMHO, I think that publishing statistics about kernel patches
downloads would
be a very Good Thing(tm) to do. Peter, what's your opinion? I think
that was
even talked about at Kernel Summit (or at least I thought of it
there), but
I'
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005, Blaisorblade wrote:
IMHO, I think that publishing statistics about kernel patches downloads would
be a very Good Thing(tm) to do. Peter, what's your opinion? I think that was
even talked about at Kernel Summit (or at least I thought of it there), but
I've not understood if t
Adrian Bunk stusta.de> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:40:43PM -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
> >
> >How do we know that something is OK or wrong? just by the fact that
> > it works or not, it doesn't mean like is OK.
> >
> > There has to be a process for any user to be able to verify
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 09:40:43PM -0500, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
>...
>How does one check if hotplug is working better than before? How do
> I test the fact that a performance issue seen in the driver is now fixed
> for me or most of users? How do I get back to a bugzilla and tell that
> t
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 03:34:09AM +0200, Martin MOKREJ? wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Martin,
> I think the discussion going on here in another thread about lack
> of positive information on how many testers successfully tested certain
> kernel version can be easily solved with real solution.
>
> How abou
Martin MOKREJŠ wrote:
Hi,
Mark Nipper wrote:
I have a different idea along these lines but not using
bugzilla. A nice system for tracking usage of certain components
might be made by having people register using a certain e-mail
address and then submitting their .config as they try out n
Hi,
Mark Nipper wrote:
I have a different idea along these lines but not using
bugzilla. A nice system for tracking usage of certain components
might be made by having people register using a certain e-mail
address and then submitting their .config as they try out new
versions of kernel
I have a different idea along these lines but not using
bugzilla. A nice system for tracking usage of certain components
might be made by having people register using a certain e-mail
address and then submitting their .config as they try out new
versions of kernels.
The idea of co
Hi,
I think the discussion going on here in another thread about lack
of positive information on how many testers successfully tested certain
kernel version can be easily solved with real solution.
How about opening separate "project" in bugzilla.kernel.org named
kernel-testers or whatever, whe
23 matches
Mail list logo
