Kernel regression tracking, part 1 [LWN.net]

Kernel regression tracking, part 1

Posted Nov 1, 2017 10:50 UTC (Wed) by roc (subscriber, #30627)
In reply to: Kernel regression tracking, part 1 by pizza
Parent article: Kernel regression tracking, part 1

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 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.