<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/9/2 drago01 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:drago01@gmail.com">drago01@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Dennis J. <<a href="mailto:dennisml@conversis.de">dennisml@conversis.de</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> 2. Regressions can be easier to fix because you have a "known to work" case<br>
> you can use as a comparison. If bugs could be flagged as regression then<br>
> developers you potentially look at these first right after the regressions<br>
> occurred and probably identify the reason for the regression right away.<br>
<br>
</div>It isn't that easy as you make it sound (especially for the kernel).<br>
It can up to need a git bisect but that requires being able to<br>
reproduce said bug (which might require hardware that the maintainer<br>
does not have).<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br></div></div></blockquote><div>that's one of the many reasons testers' work should not just be discarded. they have a lot of hardware and a lot of time the developers can not possibly have. also they are more significant as average users since they are not special persons working for special companies. i assumed here that the average user is important, at least as important as a(ny) company.<br>
</div></div>