From: "Jesper Juhl" <jesper.juhl@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:09:11 +0200[ The person you are replying to was being sarcastic, BTW. ] That's not the case we're talking about in this specific instance. In this particular case the user is more than capable of bisecting, he just isn't willing to invest the time. And I'm supposed to be willing to invest the time to analyze the TCP dumps or whatever to diagnose the problem? And I guess I should do this for every single networking bug report or issue? Who is going to clone me and the rest of the core networking developers so that this is actually tenable? That's ludicrious, I don't have a reproducer, this person does. And if they bisect, we'll know _exactly_ what change introduced the problem. Then I can use my brain to figure out the correct way to resolve the problem. Bisecting is a mindless activity that saves developers tons of time. What people don't get is that this is a situation where the "end node principle" applies. When you have limited resources (here: developers) you don't push the bulk of the burdon upon them. Instead you push things out to the resource you have a lot of, the end nodes (here: users), so that the situation actually scales. --
| David Miller | Re: [Ksummit-2008-discuss] Fixing the Kernel Janitors project |
| Rafael J. Wysocki | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| Andrew Morton | -mm merge plans for 2.6.23 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
git: | |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
