Re: Linux 2.6.21

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>]

On Sunday, 29 April 2007 22:43, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:18:10PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >...
> > But emailed reports _are_ saved anyway and we _know_ how to get a copy.
> > From lkml.org, for example.  Why don't we use that?  The only missing piece
> > is the 'keep a list' thing, but that's not a rocket science, IMHO.
> > 
> > [For example, you can create a bugzilla entry with a link to the lkml.org copy
> > of the relevant message, so why to require the reporter to file the report with
> > the bugzilla himself?]
> > 
> > _Moreover_, some LKML archives, for example at http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel,
> > keep track of each thread separately, so you can browse any of them at any
> > time.  In particular, you can see the _history_ of each bug report sent to LKML
> > if you have a link to any message in its thread.
> > 
> > Really, if we ask reporters to put '[BUG]' in the subjects of their messages,
> > you'll even be able to use the lkml.org archives plus wget and a couple of
> > shell scripts to cherry pick the links to all bug reports sent to the list
> > within a given time interval.
> > 
> > All of this functionality is out there already.
> >...
> 
> How can I get the functionality "show me all unfixed SATA bugs"?
> 
> That's one of the important functionalities of every bug tracking 
> system.

That's the missing piece, obviously.

BTW, I didn't want to say that one could entirely replace a bug-tracking system
with tracking the LKML archives.  What I wanted to say was that the email
messages sent to the LKML were easily trackable and could be hooked up into a
bug-tracking system, for example with the help of URLs.

In such a setup people could send initial reports to the LKML and the links to
these messages might be put into a bug-tracking system as soon as it turned
out that the bugs were worthy of tracking.

Greetings,
Rafael