Re: Linux 2.6.21

Linus Torvalds
2007-04-29T17:47:29Z

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:07:43AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Yes. But not using bugzilla.
>
> And what would you use instead?

Didn't you even *read* my email?

I already told you: we have real bugs getting reported and fixed that
don't hit bugzilla or any bugtracker AT ALL.

This is not a "all or nothing" situation. There is absolutely _zero_ real
reason to think that everything has to go through bugzilla.

> > I don't know if you've noticed already, but I'm not the only one that
> > doesn't have a very high opinon of bugzilla ;)
>
> Sure, but do you have alternatives?

Yes. The ones that *work*. Plain email is preferably over bugzilla 90% of
the time.

But quite frankly, if you think you can make bugzilla work (and realize
that a lot of people will _not_ be looking at it or reporting bugs into
it), go ahead. I don't care. The only think I care about is *REALITY*, and
that means:

- a lot of reporters will not use bugzilla, because it's damn
inconvenient even for reporting. If you propose something that uses
_only_ bugzilla, you'd better also have the people who enter other
peoples bugreports into there.

- a lot of developers will not use bugzilla, because it's even more
inconvenient for developers, with no sane ways to interact with the
right people. So if you propose using bugzilla, you'd really better
have the manpower to turn bugzilla into emails (and no, the bugzilla
cc list etc is _not_ the primary one - the email cc's are the primary
ones, because that's where it is much easier to bring in new people)

In other words, anything that thinks that bugzilla is "primary" is just
broken. It can be a _part_ of the thing, but drop the belief of it being a
primary tracker. It's just too inconvenient.

Linus