On Thursday 01 May 2008 08:19:36 Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> * David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > And the people who stick these regressions into the tree need more
> > negative reinforcement.
>
> What we need is not 'negative reinforcement'.

Over time as patches succeed more I reduce testing so I can "get things done 
faster".  Eventually I screw up, and get more cautious on checking.  It's a 
dynamic balance.

With reduced review comes sloppier code.  If we can't increase review, we can 
at least increase the penalty for screwing up when I do get caught.

If vger dropped all my emails for a week after I broke the kernel, I'd be far 
more careful OR I'd find efficient ways to avoid doing that (like increasing 
review, or automated testing).  Either way, it's a win.

But I'm sure everyone else is far more disciplined than I...
Rusty.
--
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/