Kernel regression tracking, part 1 [LWN.net]

Kernel regression tracking, part 1

Posted Nov 1, 2017 10:37 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46)
In reply to: Kernel regression tracking, part 1 by roc
Parent article: Kernel regression tracking, part 1

> It's amazing how far Linux has come with such immature development practices across the board. This nonsense is tolerated because Linux is so successful, but in a less successful project it would be scorned. If a serious alternative open-source kernel ever arises with more rational development practices and takes share from Linux, people will look back and say "how did they ever think developing *that* way was a good idea?"

So is Linux successful in part due to this methodology, or in spite of it? Or both?

to post comments

Kernel regression tracking, part 1

Posted Nov 1, 2017 10:50 UTC (Wed) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] (3 responses)

I think you could make a good case for both. I think it's pretty clear that lack of centralized issue tracking is a big problem now. But you could also argue that lack of centralized issue tracking made life easier or more fun for developers in the past, and that helped get Linux where it is today.

I just don't like to see questionable Linux development practices justified by "Linux is successful, so this must be right".

Kernel regression tracking, part 1

Posted Nov 1, 2017 12:22 UTC (Wed) by Paf (subscriber, #91811) [Link]

The most you can say is “Linux is successful, so this isn’t utterly crippling.”. (Like the single maintainer model with Linus, which eventually was.)

Kernel regression tracking, part 1

Posted Nov 1, 2017 21:33 UTC (Wed) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (1 responses)

> I think it's pretty clear that lack of centralized issue tracking is a big problem now.

Is it? Can you point to some evidence please.
Or maybe I should just say [citation needed].

Kernel regression tracking, part 1

Posted Nov 2, 2017 0:36 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

Isn't the information in this article evidence enough? Distro kernel people are independently tracking regressions. Wouldn't it be better if they could share data with each other, and with the maintainers who are also tracking regressions?

Whether maintainers are tracking regressions in their heads, in a text file, writing notes on a napkin, or however, they are doing it, just in a way that's inaccessible to others.