From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261527AbULFOYq (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:24:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261400AbULFOYp (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:24:45 -0500 Received: from mailfe07.swip.net ([212.247.154.193]:25237 "EHLO mailfe07.swip.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261527AbULFOWu (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:22:50 -0500 X-T2-Posting-ID: 2Ngqim/wGkXHuU4sHkFYGQ== Subject: The bugzilla story From: Alexander Nyberg To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: zwane@holomorphy.com, akpm@osdl.org Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:22:40 +0100 Message-Id: <1102342960.727.59.camel@boxen> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi As some of you may have noticed I've been doing a run on bugzilla for the last few days to close old bugs and upgrade those who still are real bugs. I have a few things that I would like to enforce on bugzilla to makes it more maintanable which it clearly hasn't been for a while - there are lots and lots of bugs open older than 2.6.0-final. I think the alternative trees section should be dropped. This is especially a matter for -mm which has most reports of the alternative trees in bugzilla. -mm changes way too rapidly to keep track of at bugzilla ending up with open bugs that are fixed long ago. I also think this goes for any alternative tree, that problems should be reported directly to the maintainer/LKML of the tree. Only if a problem can be reproduced with the mainline kernel should the bug be reported at bugzilla. New bugzilla reports against other trees than mainline should be rejected and ask the submitter to report directly to the maintainer/LKML. Andrew, what do you think about bug reports against -mm on bugzilla? Does anyone see a problem with this? Thanks Alexander