From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:54:05 -0700

quoted text
> linux-next does little to address our two largest (IMO) problems:
> inadequate review and inadequate response to bug and regression reports. 
> But those problems are harder to fix..

This is all about positive and negative reinforcement.

The people who sit and git bisect their lives away to get the
regressions fixed need more positive reinforcement.  And the people
who stick these regressions into the tree need more negative
reinforcement.

The current way of dealing with folks who stick broken crud into the
tree results in zero change in behvaior.

People who insert the bum changes into the tree only really have one
core thing that they are sensitive to, their reputation.  That's why
there is an enormous reluctance to even suggest reverts, it looks bad
for them and it also makes more work for them in the end.

I guess what these folks are truly afraid of is that someone will
start tracking reverts and post their results in some presentation
at some big conference.  I say that would be a good thing.  To
be honest, hitting the revert button more aggressively and putting
the fear of being the "revert king" into everyone's minds might
really help with this problem.

Currently there is no sufficient negative pushback on people who
insert broken crud into the tree.  So it should be no surprise that it
continues.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/