Comments by "" (@retagainez) on "Brodie Robertson" channel.

@NJ-wb1cz Arguably Arch could test better, but there is also some trust in the kernel, and the breaking code change originated from it. You shouldn't have to test something that is already supposed to be getting tested.
2
CTRL+END.
1
This is what I've been referring when discussing that Linux's release process does not necessarily decrease the impact of bugs. Arguably, it exacerbates it. It's that the overall development process that is flawed; the deployment and review process also somewhat flawed again. It allowed this bug through. I would've loved to see a review of the breaking code changes themselves, not just the patch to fix it. Chalking it up to "things just break" is not even an archaic philosophy, it's just reckless.
1
For the purposes of open source, how is that a good thing? Limited deployments on stable, sure that can be important and sometimes good. But limiting great talent from contributing? What?
1
Im surprised that its not more prevalent, but this is all Linus' fault (along with his contributors) for why the kernel is difficult to approach for so many reasons. It has become unmaintainable save for some niche areas where people have decided to concentrate their efforts in (graphics). You should be apprehensive about the leadership changing hands. You should be apprehensive about the future of these mailing lists and super complex code. It's not going to disappear on its own. Nonetheless, it will be forced to change, and will probably continue to exist and grow (or something else will in place of Linux).
1