From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc9: Reported regressions from 2.6.25 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 00:57:50 +0200 Message-ID: <200807070057.51663.rjw@sisk.pl> References: <200807062356.47908.rjw@sisk.pl> <487142BA.1080508@keyaccess.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <487142BA.1080508-cENuUygGYd//D1n+0JDH9g@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: kernel-testers-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Rene Herman Cc: 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 On Monday, 7 of July 2008, Rene Herman wrote: > On 06-07-08 23:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >=20 > > 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 fre= e > > 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. >=20 > I did/do wonder by the way when I get them if I should be replying if= =20 > the status is unchanged from my viewpoint... >=20 > I believe your automated emails say something like "please verify if=20 > 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=20 > reply telling people it's fixed if it is but can remain silent if=20 > nothing changed". The exact wording is "The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions from 2.6.25. =A0Please verify if it still should be listed." > Being more explicit about liking a reporter to report "yes, nothing=20 > 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. Thanks, Rafael From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756588AbYGFW4Y (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:56:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756238AbYGFW4Q (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:56:16 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:56623 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755934AbYGFW4P convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Jul 2008 18:56:15 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Rene Herman Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc9: Reported regressions from 2.6.25 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 00:57:50 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: 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 References: <200807062356.47908.rjw@sisk.pl> <487142BA.1080508@keyaccess.nl> In-Reply-To: <487142BA.1080508@keyaccess.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807070057.51663.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks, Rafael