> Given that a fairly thorough performance testing suite is already in
> place, it would seem to be up to the advocates for the "threatened"
> computing environment (large or small) to convince the "testers that be"
> that certain tests should be added. It is inherently unreasonable to
> expect the developer of a feature/change to be unbiased and neutral with
> respect to that feature, therefore it is unreasonable to expect them to
> prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their feature has no negative
> impact. The best that they can do is convince themselves that the
> feature passes the really deep sniff test. The rest is up to the
> community. The ability of a third party to critique code changes is a
> large part of why the bazaar nature of linux development is so valuable.
An excellent and well thought out summary, and exactly why I welcome
Larry's proposal to do some testing and produce specific numbers on
specific patches instead of hand-waving and spreading FUD. This kind of
arrangement is exactly why the open development model will allow Linux to
win out in the long term.
M.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 28 2003 - 22:00:26 EST