Re: Linux 2.6.21

Andrew Morton
2007-04-30T06:31:31Z

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:09:06 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote:

> On Sunday, 29 April 2007 22:52, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:18:10PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > [For example, you can create a bugzilla entry with a link to the lkml.org copy
> > > of the relevant message, so why to require the reporter to file the report with
> > > the bugzilla himself?]
> >
> > Last time I did this, bugzilla at osdl.org won't let me add original
> > reporter to goddamn CC list. It would be el neat, because not everyone
> > followed instructions and forwarding emails between reporter and
> > bugzilla sucks.
>
> That's related to what I said before. The requirement that the addresses on
> the CC list must be 'known' to bugzilla is deadly wrong in every case I can
> imagine.

But unknown-to-bugzilla email addresses are accepted when they're sent to
bugme-daemon@kernel-bugs.osdl.org. This is why I'll very often switch a
bug report to email, copying individuals and mailing lists and
bugme-daemon. Then bugzilla just sits silently in the background recording
everything.

But once a bug has switched to email, it needs to stay there - it would be
bad if someone were to update the bug via the web UI because none of the
emailed participants would know of the update. So i'll often explicitly
ask "please follow up via emailed reply-to-all".

It's not great, but there's certainly enough material here for people to get
in and work on the bug, should they be so inclined.

My overall approach with this stuff is: short-term bugs are handled via email
and long-term ones are tracked in buzilla.

Hence someone (Hi, Mom) needs to track all the emailed-only bug reports and get
them filed in bugzilla once they go stale.