kernel bugzilla

kernel bugzilla

[Andrew Morton]

(Seeing as I did all this typing I added linux-kernel and changed the
subject.  I trust that's OK).

Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > If bugzilla can now collect email, just have it forward the bug reports
> > to linux-scsi as through it were from the reporter with itself on the cc
> > list.

It can be set up to report scsi bugs to a mailing list.  So we can replace
andmike with linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org as the person who gets notification
emails for scsi-related bug reports.

And, apparently, bugzilla will now accept emails and will file them away in
the right place.  I've asked Martin to help set bugzilla up so that people
who don't have a bugzilla account will be accepted into the database as well.

> imho, the kernel.org bugzilla should be abandoned.

That's what I used to think.  Until I started trying to keep track of open
bugs against late -rc kernels.  Now, the ability which bugzilla has to keep
track of open bugs and to keep track of all the correspondence associated
with a bug is looking really attractive.

That's why I want it to integrate seamlessly with our normal email-based
processes.  So we can get the best of both worlds.

> is anyone
> (developers) using it successfully?

The ACPI team use bugzilla a lot.

For those bugs which are handled in bugzilla rather than via random emails,
yeah, I'm finding bugzilla preferable.


I haven't tested this yet, but hopefully I will now be able to:

- get an email from bugme

- reply to it and cc linux-kernel and a maintainer

- Other people will comment in the normal manner with reply-to-all

- bugzilla will capture everything.

Suddenly, my ability to track open bugs gets a heap better, and nobody is
impacted at all - just an additional Cc.

One thing I haven't worked out is how to get a bug which is initially
reported via email *into* the bugzilla system for tracking purposes.  One
could just ask the originator to raise a bugzilla entry, as lots of other
projects do.  But I don't think we want to do that - it's in our interest
to make bug reporting as easy as possible for the reporter, rather than
putting up barriers.

Another problem is: what happens if a bug has been discussed via email
which is cc'ed to linux-kernel and bugzilla, and then someone comes along
and updates the bug record via the bugzilla web interface?  I suspect those
people who had been following the discussion via email wouldn't see the
update.  So bugzilla needs to a) automatically add all incoming Cc's to the
records's cc list and b) automatically add all known cc's to outgoing
notifications.

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Jens Axboe]

On Fri, Jun 17 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> (Seeing as I did all this typing I added linux-kernel and changed the
> subject.  I trust that's OK).
> 
> Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > > If bugzilla can now collect email, just have it forward the bug reports
> > > to linux-scsi as through it were from the reporter with itself on the cc
> > > list.
> 
> It can be set up to report scsi bugs to a mailing list.  So we can replace
> andmike with linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org as the person who gets notification
> emails for scsi-related bug reports.

That would help.

> And, apparently, bugzilla will now accept emails and will file them away in
> the right place.  I've asked Martin to help set bugzilla up so that people
> who don't have a bugzilla account will be accepted into the database as well.

See, that is very useful. The SUSE bugzilla used to be able to do that
as well (it probably still does but requires password etc, already too
much hassle) and I loved it. The thing about this kind of bug tracking
is that it must be just as easy and convenient to use as email. And
jumping to a browser and waving the mouse around scrolling to the right
place to input text is already cumbersome imho compared to just
answering an email (which can be done clickity-less).

> > imho, the kernel.org bugzilla should be abandoned.
> 
> That's what I used to think.  Until I started trying to keep track of open
> bugs against late -rc kernels.  Now, the ability which bugzilla has to keep
> track of open bugs and to keep track of all the correspondence associated
> with a bug is looking really attractive.

I never disputed that it isn't useful. It is/was just a bother to use.

> That's why I want it to integrate seamlessly with our normal email-based
> processes.  So we can get the best of both worlds.

Indeed, that is the key to making it useful.

> > is anyone
> > (developers) using it successfully?
> 
> The ACPI team use bugzilla a lot.
> 
> For those bugs which are handled in bugzilla rather than via random emails,
> yeah, I'm finding bugzilla preferable.
> 
> 
> I haven't tested this yet, but hopefully I will now be able to:
> 
> - get an email from bugme
> 
> - reply to it and cc linux-kernel and a maintainer
> 
> - Other people will comment in the normal manner with reply-to-all
> 
> - bugzilla will capture everything.
> 
> Suddenly, my ability to track open bugs gets a heap better, and nobody is
> impacted at all - just an additional Cc.

That is the way it should work.

> One thing I haven't worked out is how to get a bug which is initially
> reported via email *into* the bugzilla system for tracking purposes.  One
> could just ask the originator to raise a bugzilla entry, as lots of other
> projects do.  But I don't think we want to do that - it's in our interest
> to make bug reporting as easy as possible for the reporter, rather than
> putting up barriers.

Depends... Sometimes it's quite ok to put the onus on the reported to
file it in bugzilla, since it should be considered in his best interest
to do so - he obviously filed the bug, because the issue bothers him in
some way. As long as it is 'easy enough' to do so, I think we are
alright. The question is if this can't be automated fairly easily. A
good bugzilla interface helps a _lot_.

> Another problem is: what happens if a bug has been discussed via email
> which is cc'ed to linux-kernel and bugzilla, and then someone comes along
> and updates the bug record via the bugzilla web interface?  I suspect those
> people who had been following the discussion via email wouldn't see the
> update.  So bugzilla needs to a) automatically add all incoming Cc's to the
> records's cc list and b) automatically add all known cc's to outgoing
> notifications.

At the risk of making bugzilla just a little too annoying, if you find
yourself having to manually remove the cc in selected bug entries just
because you participated in the thread at some point.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Andrew Morton]

Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
>
> > One thing I haven't worked out is how to get a bug which is initially
> > reported via email *into* the bugzilla system for tracking purposes.  One
> > could just ask the originator to raise a bugzilla entry, as lots of other
> > projects do.  But I don't think we want to do that - it's in our interest
> > to make bug reporting as easy as possible for the reporter, rather than
> > putting up barriers.
> 
> Depends... Sometimes it's quite ok to put the onus on the reported to
> file it in bugzilla, since it should be considered in his best interest
> to do so - he obviously filed the bug, because the issue bothers him in
> some way. As long as it is 'easy enough' to do so, I think we are
> alright. The question is if this can't be automated fairly easily. A
> good bugzilla interface helps a _lot_.

Agree.  We should encourage people to use bugzilla as the initial
entry-point.  But if someone instead uses email as the first contact I'm
just a little bit reluctant to say "thanks, now go and try again".

Perhaps we could find some nice volunteer (hint) who could take the task of
transferring such reports into bugzilla.  There wouldn't be very many, really.

> > Another problem is: what happens if a bug has been discussed via email
> > which is cc'ed to linux-kernel and bugzilla, and then someone comes along
> > and updates the bug record via the bugzilla web interface?  I suspect those
> > people who had been following the discussion via email wouldn't see the
> > update.  So bugzilla needs to a) automatically add all incoming Cc's to the
> > records's cc list and b) automatically add all known cc's to outgoing
> > notifications.
> 
> At the risk of making bugzilla just a little too annoying, if you find
> yourself having to manually remove the cc in selected bug entries just
> because you participated in the thread at some point.

Yeah, maybe I'm a little unsympathetic about other people's email volume
problems ;)

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> We should encourage people to use bugzilla as the initial
> entry-point.  But if someone instead uses email as the first contact I'm
> just a little bit reluctant to say "thanks, now go and try again".
> 
> Perhaps we could find some nice volunteer (hint) who could take the task of
> transferring such reports into bugzilla.

Andrew, I'm going to file

	Subject: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
	Subject: 2.6.12 cpu-freq conservative governor problem
	Subject: PROBLEM: libata + sata_sil on sil3112 dosen't work proper
	Subject: [2.6.12] x86-64 IO-APIC + timer doesn't work

around monday evening if there would be no activity.

Do I understand correctly that the procedure is

	1. Search for duplicates
	2. Choose category
	3. Add "From: Joe Reporter <>" at the beginning, copy-paste email.
	4. Add Joe and relevant lists to CC.
	5. Profi^WCommit

and bugzilla won't shoot unsuspecting guys afterwards?

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Andrew Morton]

Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > We should encourage people to use bugzilla as the initial
> > entry-point.  But if someone instead uses email as the first contact I'm
> > just a little bit reluctant to say "thanks, now go and try again".
> > 
> > Perhaps we could find some nice volunteer (hint) who could take the task of
> > transferring such reports into bugzilla.
> 
> Andrew, I'm going to file
> 
> 	Subject: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
> 	Subject: 2.6.12 cpu-freq conservative governor problem
> 	Subject: PROBLEM: libata + sata_sil on sil3112 dosen't work proper
> 	Subject: [2.6.12] x86-64 IO-APIC + timer doesn't work
> 
> around monday evening if there would be no activity.

Sounds good, thanks - let us know how it goes.

It'll need to be coordinated with the reporter in some way.  It may end up
too confusing.

> Do I understand correctly that the procedure is
> 
> 	1. Search for duplicates
> 	2. Choose category
> 	3. Add "From: Joe Reporter <>" at the beginning, copy-paste email.
> 	4. Add Joe and relevant lists to CC.
> 	5. Profi^WCommit
> 
> and bugzilla won't shoot unsuspecting guys afterwards?

I think so.  I've never entered a bug ;)

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Alexey Dobriyan]

On Saturday 18 June 2005 22:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > We should encourage people to use bugzilla as the initial
> > > entry-point.  But if someone instead uses email as the first contact I'm
> > > just a little bit reluctant to say "thanks, now go and try again".
> > > 
> > > Perhaps we could find some nice volunteer (hint) who could take the task of
> > > transferring such reports into bugzilla.
> > 
> > Andrew, I'm going to file
> > 
> > 	Subject: 2.6.12: connection tracking broken?
> > 	Subject: 2.6.12 cpu-freq conservative governor problem
> > 	Subject: PROBLEM: libata + sata_sil on sil3112 dosen't work proper
> > 	Subject: [2.6.12] x86-64 IO-APIC + timer doesn't work
> > 
> > around monday evening if there would be no activity.
> 
> Sounds good, thanks - let us know how it goes.
> 
> It'll need to be coordinated with the reporter in some way.  It may end up
> too confusing.
> 
> > Do I understand correctly that the procedure is
> > 
> > 	1. Search for duplicates
> > 	2. Choose category
> > 	3. Add "From: Joe Reporter <>" at the beginning, copy-paste email.
> > 	4. Add Joe and relevant lists to CC.

Craaap.

"The name <mailing list> is not a valid username. Either you misspelled it,
or the person has not registered for a Bugzilla account."

Same for Joe Reporter. :-(

> > 	5. Profi^WCommit
> > 
> > and bugzilla won't shoot unsuspecting guys afterwards?
> 
> I think so.  I've never entered a bug ;)

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:39:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > > One thing I haven't worked out is how to get a bug which is initially
> > > reported via email *into* the bugzilla system for tracking purposes.  One
> > > could just ask the originator to raise a bugzilla entry, as lots of other
> > > projects do.  But I don't think we want to do that - it's in our interest
> > > to make bug reporting as easy as possible for the reporter, rather than
> > > putting up barriers.
> > 
> > Depends... Sometimes it's quite ok to put the onus on the reported to
> > file it in bugzilla, since it should be considered in his best interest
> > to do so - he obviously filed the bug, because the issue bothers him in
> > some way. As long as it is 'easy enough' to do so, I think we are
> > alright. The question is if this can't be automated fairly easily. A
> > good bugzilla interface helps a _lot_.
> 
> Agree.  We should encourage people to use bugzilla as the initial
> entry-point.  But if someone instead uses email as the first contact I'm
> just a little bit reluctant to say "thanks, now go and try again".
> 
> Perhaps we could find some nice volunteer (hint) who could take the task of
> transferring such reports into bugzilla.  There wouldn't be very many, really.
>...

Why does this has to be done manually?

Reporting a bug in a Bugzilla only requires creating an account (if you 
don't have one) and entering the bug. It's not a "do it again", since 
the user already has the whole contents of the bug report. If you've 
written an email with a good bug report pasting it into a Bugzilla 
shouldn't be a problem.

The big problem for users of many bug tracking systems (including the 
kernel Bugzilla) is not that bug reporting was too hard. The problem is 
that bugs aren't handled in time.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Martin J. Bligh]

>> > > One thing I haven't worked out is how to get a bug which is initially
>> > > reported via email *into* the bugzilla system for tracking purposes.  One
>> > > could just ask the originator to raise a bugzilla entry, as lots of other
>> > > projects do.  But I don't think we want to do that - it's in our interest
>> > > to make bug reporting as easy as possible for the reporter, rather than
>> > > putting up barriers.
>> > 
>> > Depends... Sometimes it's quite ok to put the onus on the reported to
>> > file it in bugzilla, since it should be considered in his best interest
>> > to do so - he obviously filed the bug, because the issue bothers him in
>> > some way. As long as it is 'easy enough' to do so, I think we are
>> > alright. The question is if this can't be automated fairly easily. A
>> > good bugzilla interface helps a _lot_.
>> 
>> Agree.  We should encourage people to use bugzilla as the initial
>> entry-point.  But if someone instead uses email as the first contact I'm
>> just a little bit reluctant to say "thanks, now go and try again".
>> 
>> Perhaps we could find some nice volunteer (hint) who could take the task of
>> transferring such reports into bugzilla.  There wouldn't be very many, really.
>> ...
> 
> Why does this has to be done manually?
> 
> Reporting a bug in a Bugzilla only requires creating an account (if you 
> don't have one) and entering the bug. It's not a "do it again", since 
> the user already has the whole contents of the bug report. If you've 
> written an email with a good bug report pasting it into a Bugzilla 
> shouldn't be a problem.

The manual steps I see are filling in the fields other than problem
description - version, category, and subcategory, in particular ...
 
> The big problem for users of many bug tracking systems (including the 
> kernel Bugzilla) is not that bug reporting was too hard. The problem is 
> that bugs aren't handled in time.

Agreed.

M.

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Martin J. Bligh]

>> It can be set up to report scsi bugs to a mailing list.  So we can replace
>> andmike with linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org as the person who gets notification
>> emails for scsi-related bug reports.
> 
> That would help.

The other thing we can do is set up "spoof" users per category, then 
anyone can just set up that spoof user to watch, and they'll see things
for each category. Some of them are like that already.

Frankly, I think a lot of people would prefer to subscribe to
bugme-new@lists.osdl.org, and then filter on the X- headers that give 
you category and subcategory nicely. That way you get one email for
each NEW bug. depends what you want.
 
>> And, apparently, bugzilla will now accept emails and will file them away in
>> the right place.  I've asked Martin to help set bugzilla up so that people
>> who don't have a bugzilla account will be accepted into the database as well.
> 
> See, that is very useful. The SUSE bugzilla used to be able to do that
> as well (it probably still does but requires password etc, already too
> much hassle) and I loved it. The thing about this kind of bug tracking
> is that it must be just as easy and convenient to use as email. And
> jumping to a browser and waving the mouse around scrolling to the right
> place to input text is already cumbersome imho compared to just
> answering an email (which can be done clickity-less).

Is done now. Please try, but be gentle with it. And send beer to Kees ;-)
 
>> I haven't tested this yet, but hopefully I will now be able to:
>> 
>> - get an email from bugme
>> 
>> - reply to it and cc linux-kernel and a maintainer
>> 
>> - Other people will comment in the normal manner with reply-to-all
>> 
>> - bugzilla will capture everything.
>> 
>> Suddenly, my ability to track open bugs gets a heap better, and nobody is
>> impacted at all - just an additional Cc.
> 
> That is the way it should work.

I think it will now. We probably need some more crap-filtering (rmk
pointed out signatures, for instance, not sure if we do that already).
Apologies this has taken a while.
 
>> One thing I haven't worked out is how to get a bug which is initially
>> reported via email *into* the bugzilla system for tracking purposes.  One
>> could just ask the originator to raise a bugzilla entry, as lots of other
>> projects do.  But I don't think we want to do that - it's in our interest
>> to make bug reporting as easy as possible for the reporter, rather than
>> putting up barriers.
> 
> Depends... Sometimes it's quite ok to put the onus on the reported to
> file it in bugzilla, since it should be considered in his best interest
> to do so - he obviously filed the bug, because the issue bothers him in
> some way. As long as it is 'easy enough' to do so, I think we are
> alright. The question is if this can't be automated fairly easily. A
> good bugzilla interface helps a _lot_.

The external one is infintely simpler than the internal IBM one, and
the distro ones. I *really, really* prefer to keep it that way. Having 
said that, it does have a few fields (eg version, and category/subcategory) that should be filled out properly, and that's not easy to do via email.
For now, my intent is to allow bug filing via web only, and followup 
comments by email. If lots of people scream and curse at me, I'll
reconsider I suppose.

>> Another problem is: what happens if a bug has been discussed via email
>> which is cc'ed to linux-kernel and bugzilla, and then someone comes along
>> and updates the bug record via the bugzilla web interface?  I suspect those
>> people who had been following the discussion via email wouldn't see the
>> update.  So bugzilla needs to a) automatically add all incoming Cc's to the
>> records's cc list and b) automatically add all known cc's to outgoing
>> notifications.
> 
> At the risk of making bugzilla just a little too annoying, if you find
> yourself having to manually remove the cc in selected bug entries just
> because you participated in the thread at some point.

I think this could easily be a per-user preference. I think akpm would
like it to default to on, which would be OK by me, at least.

Apologies for neglecting Bugzilla a bit recently, I shall get back on it.
Kudos to Jon Tollefson (IBM) and Kees Cook (OSDL) for doing most of
the technical work recently.

M.

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Dave Jones]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:45:39PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:

 > The external one is infintely simpler than the internal IBM one, and
 > the distro ones. I *really, really* prefer to keep it that way. Having 
 > said that, it does have a few fields (eg version, and category/subcategory) that should be filled out properly, and that's not easy to do via email.
 > For now, my intent is to allow bug filing via web only, and followup 
 > comments by email. If lots of people scream and curse at me, I'll
 > reconsider I suppose.

Something that I'd *really* love to see is usage of other bugzillas
xml-rpc interfaces, so that for eg, if someone files a Fedora bug
where some driver blows up, and I think it doesn't look like
it's caused by any patch in our tree, I'd love to click a button
in rh-bugzilla and have the bug automatically be also filed
in bugme.osdl, with the various comments mirrored back to the
originating bugzilla.

One of the problems faced by bug-reporters sometimes is that with
the multitude of bugzillas out there, and no cooperation between
them all, they don't know where to file their bug.
"My sound driver blew up, where do I file a bug"
bugzilla.redhat.com? bugme.osdl.org ? (in fact, I think the ALSA
folks have their own bugzilla if memory serves correctly)
[This demonstrates the problem -- even _I_ don't know, and I get a fair
 amount of alsa bug reports from end-users]

I've never actually looked into the xml-rpc implementation of bugzilla,
so my mental-image of how this stuff works may be grossly oversimplified,
but I've heard multiple folks claim this should be possible with some
scripting.  I've also heard people asking for the opposite.
"This bugme.osdl bug is present in RHEL/SLES/etc.. file a bug using
 xml-rpc in the various bugzillas so that it gets backported".

		Dave

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Kyle Moffett]

On Jun 18, 2005, at 15:13:41, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:45:39PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> The external one is infintely simpler than the internal IBM one, and
>> the distro ones. I *really, really* prefer to keep it that way.  
>> Having
>> said that, it does have a few fields (eg version, and
>> category/subcategory) that should be filled out properly, and that's
>> not easy to do via email.
>> For now, my intent is to allow bug filing via web only, and followup
>> comments by email. If lots of people scream and curse at me, I'll
>> reconsider I suppose.
>
> Something that I'd *really* love to see is usage of other bugzillas
> xml-rpc interfaces, so that for eg, if someone files a Fedora bug
> where some driver blows up, and I think it doesn't look like
> it's caused by any patch in our tree, I'd love to click a button
> in rh-bugzilla and have the bug automatically be also filed
> in bugme.osdl, with the various comments mirrored back to the
> originating bugzilla.

Another wishlist feature I've seen is to have a mailing list archiver
attached to bugzilla that receives and stores the last month worth of
emails on the list.  At any time someone can login and:
     o  Bind an archived email to a bugzilla bug-report
     o  Create a new bugzilla bug-report from an archived email (with
        extra fields specified by the user).
     o  Add an archived followup email in a thread to the bug-report.

Once an email is bound, it is marked for permanent storage in bugzilla
(as opposed to the temporary one month storage for all emails).

The first time the "create" or "bind" options are selected for a given
thread, a post would be sent to the list indicating the bind, from the
bugzilla address for that bug.  Any followup posts that CC that address
will automatically be included in the bug database.  It seems that would
allow users to quickly and easily tie the bug database to the email
archive, although I could very easily be missing something here.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$  
r  !y?(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Dave Jones]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 10:54:33PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
 > On Jun 18, 2005, at 15:13:41, Dave Jones wrote:
 > >On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:45:39PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
 > >>The external one is infintely simpler than the internal IBM one, and
 > >>the distro ones. I *really, really* prefer to keep it that way.  
 > >>Having
 > >>said that, it does have a few fields (eg version, and
 > >>category/subcategory) that should be filled out properly, and that's
 > >>not easy to do via email.
 > >>For now, my intent is to allow bug filing via web only, and followup
 > >>comments by email. If lots of people scream and curse at me, I'll
 > >>reconsider I suppose.
 > >
 > >Something that I'd *really* love to see is usage of other bugzillas
 > >xml-rpc interfaces, so that for eg, if someone files a Fedora bug
 > >where some driver blows up, and I think it doesn't look like
 > >it's caused by any patch in our tree, I'd love to click a button
 > >in rh-bugzilla and have the bug automatically be also filed
 > >in bugme.osdl, with the various comments mirrored back to the
 > >originating bugzilla.
 > 
 > Another wishlist feature I've seen is to have a mailing list archiver
 > attached to bugzilla that receives and stores the last month worth of
 > emails on the list.  At any time someone can login and:
 
The volume of mail bugzilla-mail generates is obscene.
I've been on vacation for a week, and I have over a 1000
mails waiting for me from rh-bugzilla when I get back
to give you an indication.[*]

A month worth is just mammoth, and unless you have a lot
of spare time on your hands (or you have have a masochistic streak),
most of it will go unread, so I'm not sure such an archive
would be particularly useful.

I do have a bunch of scripts for rh-bugzilla that could probably
be adapted to osdl-bugme to obtain stats etc like
"show me how many bugs are in state x for kernel y", I'll
take a look at doing that soon.

		Dave

[*] Ok, rh-bugzilla gets a 'little' more than osdl-bugme does,
but that may not always be the case, especially if escalating
bugs to upstream becomes easier.

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Kyle Moffett]

On Jun 19, 2005, at 04:22:51, Dave Jones wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 10:54:33PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>> Another wishlist feature I've seen is to have a mailing list archiver
>> attached to bugzilla that receives and stores the last month worth of
>> emails on the list.  At any time someone can login and:
>>
>
> The volume of mail bugzilla-mail generates is obscene.
> I've been on vacation for a week, and I have over a 1000
> mails waiting for me from rh-bugzilla when I get back
> to give you an indication.[*]

I was thinking something more like an LKML archiver tied to bugzilla,
because I've seen a number of times where bugs get reported to the list
and then lost, causing the reported oops and other critical data to
fall by the wayside.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to  
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the  
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious  
deficiencies.
  -- C.A.R. Hoare

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Takashi Iwai]

At Sat, 18 Jun 2005 15:13:41 -0400,
Dave Jones wrote:
> 
> One of the problems faced by bug-reporters sometimes is that with
> the multitude of bugzillas out there, and no cooperation between
> them all, they don't know where to file their bug.
> "My sound driver blew up, where do I file a bug"
> bugzilla.redhat.com? bugme.osdl.org ? (in fact, I think the ALSA
> folks have their own bugzilla if memory serves correctly)
> [This demonstrates the problem -- even _I_ don't know, and I get a fair
>  amount of alsa bug reports from end-users]

Yes, we have Mantis as own bugtracking system:

	https://bugtrack.alsa-project.org/alsa-bug/

I fully agree with Dave.  There are too many bugzillas, and developers
can't cover all of them, too.

It'd be nice if these (exported) bugzilla systems can notify to the
corresponding devel ML, e.g. alsa-devel in the case of ALSA, so that
the reports surely reach to developers.


Takashi

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Martin J. Bligh]

> It'd be nice if these (exported) bugzilla systems can notify to the
> corresponding devel ML, e.g. alsa-devel in the case of ALSA, so that
> the reports surely reach to developers.

That's easily fixable. However, it's likely to irritate SOME people on
each list. What I suggest is subscribing to bugme-new@lists.osdl.org,
(which will get you one email for each new bug) and have someone in that 
group take responsiblity for forwarding new bugs in the relevant 
categories to the list (there are headers to filter on). A simple 
procmail filter should suffice ... but I'm not willing to take
responsibility for automated emailt to lists I'm not even subscribed to ;-)

M.

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Herbert Xu]

Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> At the risk of making bugzilla just a little too annoying, if you find
> yourself having to manually remove the cc in selected bug entries just
> because you participated in the thread at some point.

At least with bugzilla you have an option to remove yourself from the
CC list.  With a mailing list thread you could get CCed just the same
and there is nothing you can do about it apart from raising a complaint
on the list.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Kenneth Parrish]

-=> Dave Jones wrote to Kyle Moffett <=-

 > [*] Ok, rh-bugzilla gets a 'little' more than osdl-bugme does, [..]

 OSDL
      Open Source Development Lab (org.)

  -- V.E.R.A., a list dealing with computational acronyms.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.46

kernel bugzilla

[Andrew Morton]

We probably have a lot of bugs which just got quietly fixed, but are still
open.

Could anyone who has ever raised a bug please review the bugs which you
raised and, if necessary, retest?

If the bug is unreproducible or was just some random oops which happened
ages ago then it's probably best to close it off - it it's real then it'll
happen again.

	http://bugzilla.kernel.org/

thanks.

Re: kernel bugzilla

[Diego Calleja García]

On Mon, 12 May 2003 16:04:46 -0700
Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com> wrote:

> If the bug is unreproducible or was just some random oops which happened
> ages ago then it's probably best to close it off - it it's real then it'll
> happen again.
> 
> 	http://bugzilla.kernel.org/

what about a bug report "timeout"? 
(Well that doesn't works very well for well-know bugs :-/ )

Just a suggestion, please don't hit me ;)