From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nigel Cunningham Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc9: Reported regressions from 2.6.25 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:11:11 +1000 Message-ID: <1215385871.29880.11.camel@nigel-laptop> References: <200807062356.47908.rjw@sisk.pl> <487142BA.1080508@keyaccess.nl> <200807070057.51663.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200807070057.51663.rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org> Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Rene Herman , Adrian Bunk , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Natalie Protasevich , Kernel Testers List , Maximilian Engelhardt , Randy Dunlap , "Paul E. McKenney" , James Bottomley , Domenico Andreoli Hi Rafael etc. On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 00:57 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 7 of July 2008, Rene Herman wrote: > > On 06-07-08 23:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > BTW, the automated emails I'm sending are to let the reporters know > > > that I'm interested in the current status of the bug. They are free > > > not to reply to them, but in that case I assume they don't really > > > care whether or not I'm tracking the bugs they reported. > > > > I did/do wonder by the way when I get them if I should be replying if > > the status is unchanged from my viewpoint... > > > > I believe your automated emails say something like "please verify if > > this problem is still relevant" but don't spell out what do after you > > verified that it is. It's sort of natural to take that as "I need to > > reply telling people it's fixed if it is but can remain silent if > > nothing changed". > > The exact wording is > > "The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed." > > > Being more explicit about liking a reporter to report "yes, nothing > > changed" would probably be good if that IS what's wanted. > > Well, I can change it to > > "Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know." > > if that's better. > I would suggest that you should assume it's still relevant until the bugzilla entry gets closed. The person fixing the bug should be responsible for modifying the report to say that a patch is available and then has been merged (or for saying it's an invalid report etc). This way, you're making the whole process less burdensome rather than so. Regards, Nigel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754024AbYGGCJE (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:09:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751056AbYGGCIy (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:08:54 -0400 Received: from nschwqsrv02p.mx.bigpond.com ([61.9.189.234]:27192 "EHLO nschwqsrv02p.mx.bigpond.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750827AbYGGCIx (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jul 2008 22:08:53 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 10657 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:08:52 EDT Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc9: Reported regressions from 2.6.25 From: Nigel Cunningham To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Rene Herman , Adrian Bunk , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Natalie Protasevich , Kernel Testers List , Maximilian Engelhardt , Randy Dunlap , "Paul E. McKenney" , James Bottomley , Domenico Andreoli In-Reply-To: <200807070057.51663.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200807062356.47908.rjw@sisk.pl> <487142BA.1080508@keyaccess.nl> <200807070057.51663.rjw@sisk.pl> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Christian Reformed Churches of Australia Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:11:11 +1000 Message-Id: <1215385871.29880.11.camel@nigel-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RPD-ScanID: Class unknown; VirusThreatLevel unknown, RefID str=0001.0A150202.48715111.0058,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Rafael etc. On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 00:57 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 7 of July 2008, Rene Herman wrote: > > On 06-07-08 23:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > BTW, the automated emails I'm sending are to let the reporters know > > > that I'm interested in the current status of the bug. They are free > > > not to reply to them, but in that case I assume they don't really > > > care whether or not I'm tracking the bugs they reported. > > > > I did/do wonder by the way when I get them if I should be replying if > > the status is unchanged from my viewpoint... > > > > I believe your automated emails say something like "please verify if > > this problem is still relevant" but don't spell out what do after you > > verified that it is. It's sort of natural to take that as "I need to > > reply telling people it's fixed if it is but can remain silent if > > nothing changed". > > The exact wording is > > "The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed." > > > Being more explicit about liking a reporter to report "yes, nothing > > changed" would probably be good if that IS what's wanted. > > Well, I can change it to > > "Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know." > > if that's better. > I would suggest that you should assume it's still relevant until the bugzilla entry gets closed. The person fixing the bug should be responsible for modifying the report to say that a patch is available and then has been merged (or for saying it's an invalid report etc). This way, you're making the whole process less burdensome rather than so. Regards, Nigel