From: Alexander Nyberg <alexn@dsv.su.se>
To: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zwane@holomorphy.com, akpm@osdl.org
Subject: Re: The bugzilla story
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 17:26:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1102350405.727.79.camel@boxen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <476570000.1102346931@[10.10.2.4]>
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 07:28 -0800, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > 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?
>
> The subtrees section was created for exactly that reason - to isolate the
> bugs in alternate trees, and keep the out of everyone else's hair. Now if
> one was to argue that bugs in -mm should be cleaned up much more agressively,
> that'd make a lot of sense ... but that should be fairly easy to do as
> they're in a separate category you can search by.
>
> The main issue is that there haven't been many people doing what you're doing
> now ... going through and housekeeping the bugs.
The thing is that -mm changes so fast that a bug reported can be solved
an hour later, leaving a stale bug report for a few days (or years).
Whoever wants to pick up the bug quite much has to mail either the
bug-submitter asking if the bug has been resolved, mail the maintainer
of whatever area the bug concerns or mail akpm.
This leads me to thinking that bugzilla doesn't serve any functionality
for at least -mm.
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-12-06 16:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-12-06 14:22 The bugzilla story Alexander Nyberg
2004-12-06 15:03 ` Zwane Mwaikambo
2004-12-06 15:28 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-12-06 16:26 ` Alexander Nyberg [this message]
2004-12-06 16:14 ` Alan Cox
2004-12-06 23:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2004-12-08 1:14 ` Jeff Garzik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1102350405.727.79.camel@boxen \
--to=alexn@dsv.su.se \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=zwane@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox