Re: 2.5 Problem Status Report

Thomas Molina
2002-09-11T18:30:02Z

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:00:30PM -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> > 2.5 Kernel Problem Reports as of 10 Sep
> > Problem Title Status Discussion
> > qlogicisp oops no further discussion 2.5.33
> > PCI and/or starfire.c broken no further discussion 2.5.33
> > __write_lock_failed() oops no further discussion 2.5.33
>
> Since 3 of these are things I reported...

[snip explanation of why these are "long-term problems"]

I've seen these problem status reports as a fairly dynamic item,
especially at this stage of 2.5 development. Is my current way of doing
things useful to the list? Certainly this posting seems to have generated
a number of useful discussions. I wish they had migrated to the threads
where the original problem had been brought up.

I've had several messages like this one, where people have asked what
about problem x, y, or z that have disappeared from the radar scope. I'm
thinking I could keep the character of this report like it is now, and
have another one with the "long-term problems". I've been sending this
report to the list about once a week, usually just after Linus brings out
a new point release. The other list could be a less-frequent "what about
these?" kind of list.