User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Mark's response was strong

Mark's response was strong

Posted Apr 16, 2008 0:28 UTC (Wed) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
Parent article: Bisection divides users and developers

Mark's response was hyperbole ("This 100% reliance on git-bisect").  The fact is, he was
running an unreleased kernel and expected unpaid volunteers to solve his problem.

Any tool that allows users to narrow down a bug is a good thing - whether or not all/some of
them will think it is worth their while to use the tool.


(Log in to post comments)

Mark's response was strong

Posted Apr 16, 2008 13:44 UTC (Wed) by kirkengaard (guest, #15022) [Link]

He, too, is an unpaid volunteer. Last I checked, linux-kernel wasn't a client of Real-Time
Remedies Inc, and this seems to have occurred while hobby-hacking on his empeg devices. Once
upon a time, that was an unthinkable distinction -- we were all unpaid volunteers. In this
case, it would be preferable for you to blow that suggestion out of some other orifice. This
is not a corporate "do our work for us" request, this is hacker-to-hacker.

Your following comment is dangerously akin to suggesting that he got what he deserved for
running an unreleased kernel, and that his laziness is the root of the problem.

In the thread process, it is quite obvious that he did test a wide range of kernels (i.e.
2.6.11-2.6.24), and that he did observe the mass number of commit changes around the relevant
close() code in the networking stack. He also provided excellent troubleshooting of the
problem, tracing the error down to exactly what happened (i.e. premature reset of the
connection on close()).

Once bisect was suggested, <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/663422>, it became the
solution. Nobody had an answer off the top of their heads -- or informed Mark that the
relevant developer was asleep -- and it became "here, find the rest of the information and
give it to us." Thus the argument about bug reporting being a two-way street, and the
suggestion that Mark expected it to be a one-way street -- ignoring the work he had done
already to report the bug in a very thorough manner.  From here, the flamewar threshold was
crossed in short order.

Having the time is the issue. Assuming the timestamps are valid for estimation purpose, the
report was filed at 6:56, and his "If I had the time right now, maybe." comment was at 21:05.
Between, he posted four times, each with more information from his bug-tracking work. That's a
lot of work product.

Be careful about your assumptions when you make off-the-cuff remarks like that. Mark's
response was strong, but not unjustified. This is the way the community has worked in the
past, and the impression he got of "(shrug) Dunno, go bisect." is not hard to see.

Mark's response was strong

Posted Apr 16, 2008 14:59 UTC (Wed) by mb (subscriber, #50428) [Link]

> Having the time is the issue. Assuming the timestamps are valid for estimation purpose, the
> report was filed at 6:56, and his "If I had the time right now, maybe." comment was at
21:05.
> Between, he posted four times, each with more information from his bug-tracking work. That's
a
> lot of work product.

In that time he could easily have done a complete bisect instead.
bisect saves time for developers _and_ users.

Mark's response was strong

Posted Apr 16, 2008 17:39 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

You're ignoring Mark's point.  I think he was right to push back a little.

If the automatic first response of developers is "go bisect it!" then that doesn't save time
for anybody.  Most bugs don't need a full bisection and many bugs won't bisect well well (as
noted by the article).

Both parties in this discussion had excellent points.  Ideally devs will have to compromise a
little by considering the bug report for 30 sec to reduce wild goose chases and making users
feel like they're getting the runaround.  Users will have to compromise a little more because
they scale.

In an ideal world.  :)

Mark's response was strong

Posted Apr 16, 2008 17:58 UTC (Wed) by mb (subscriber, #50428) [Link]

> If the automatic first response of developers is "go bisect it!" then that doesn't save time
> for anybody.  Most bugs don't need a full bisection and many bugs won't bisect well well (as
> noted by the article).

Ok, point accepted. :)

Mark's response was strong

Posted Apr 17, 2008 0:30 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

I wasn't being off-the-cuff.  After 14 hours (by your estimation) his bug wasn't fixed and he
goes on a rant?  Seems a bit excessive to me.

Mark's response was strong

Posted Apr 17, 2008 5:18 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

he wasn't complaining that the bug didn't get fixed in 14 hours, he was complaining that the
attitude of the developers seemed to be "we won't look at the problem until you bisect it"


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds