Re: Who wants to maintain KR list for stable releases? (was Re: nmi_watchdog=2 regression in 2.6.21)

Michal Piotrowski
2007-08-27T11:38:39Z

On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 02:45:02 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Daniel Walker pisze:
> > [snip]
> > > Have you considered maintaining all the lists in Bugzilla?
> >
> > Yes, I have considered it.
> >
> > Bugzilla sucks when it comes to tracking things. There is
> > a regression field, but there are no difference between
> > 2.6.22 and 2.6.23 regression.
> >
> > Most people are reporting bugs through LKML:
> > - 23 regressions with reference to LKML
> > - 4 regressions with reference to Bugzilla
>
> Presumably that's fixable.
>
> But I think bugzilla is more appropriate for tracking longer-term bugs. If
> some problem has just popped up (or has just been discovered) then it's
> best to try to knock it over with a quick email discussion. If that
> doesn't work out then the bug should be captured in bugzilla so that it
> doesn't get lost.
>
> The really important data which bugzilla will record are
>
> a) the fact that the bug exists and
>
> b) the identity of the person who can reproduce it and who will hopefully
> work with us on fixing it.
>
> > > If you had a
> > > search of open bugs they would just fall of the list as they get
> > > closed..
> >
> > Unfortunately, the world is not perfect.
> >
> > Is anyone interested in maintaining KR list for stable releases?
>
> I'm not sure that we need one, really. Any bugs in a stable release can be
> handled via email and/or bugzilla as we are presently doing?
>
> What I'm concerned about is that regressions which we didn't fix are just
> getting lost. Is anyone taking care to ensure that they are getting
> transitioned into bugzilla for tracking?

I can copy all regression reports into Bugzilla after each release.

Regards,
Michal

--
LOG