Re: kernel bugzilla is FPOS (was: Re: "buggy cmd640" message followed by soft lockup)

Adrian Bunk
2007-11-25T22:40:32Z

On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 11:38:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 of November 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:28:06PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 25 of November 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >..
> > > > First of all, Bugzilla is a quite often used bug tracker in the open
> > > > source world [1], so many users already know it.
> > > >
> > > > But more important, "it pretends to require them to spend" isn't true
> > > > because there's no pretending - we actually often require bug reporters
> > > > to spend a lot of time on the bug report (e.g. when asking for
> > > > bisecting).
> > >
> > > But not *initially*.
> > >
> > > We should not confuse *debugging* with *reporting bugs*. While the former is
> > > actually more difficult and more time consuming than writing the code in which
> > > the bug is present, the latter should be as simple as sending an email.
> >
> > For hardcore geeks like you and me sending an email might be easier than
> > using some web interface.
> >
> > Normal humans tend to be more accustomed to web interfaces, and
> > following the instructions on some web page is _much_ easier than
> > reading three text files for knowing what to write in an email.
>
> Hm, this is a good argument for having such a web interface, but IMO it
> shouldn't be mandatory. IOW, there should be a way to report a bug using plain
> email, if the reporter prefers that. We can, however, request that the address
> of our bug tracking system be added to the report's Cc list.

Looking at both other open source projects and the support of commercial
software a web interface should be enough.

But this is not the problem - the problem is what happens after the
initial report with the bug report.

> Now, the question is what information this web interface should ask for.
>
> IMO, first, it should ask for what the bug is against, ie.:
> - kernel version (to be obtained from 'git describe' or from /proc/version or
> from .config, if the kernel doesn't boot)
> - architecture (x86, ARM, MIPS etc.)
> - subsystem and subsubsystem (that could be selectable from a menu and might
> depend on the architecture)
>
> It also should ask if the problem is a regression and what was the last known
> good kernel (I'd prefer that to be the last known major release selectable from
> a list).
>
> Also, the reporter should be required to provide a summary (subject) and
> a (concise) description of the problem and a list of email addresses to
> send the report to in addition to the regular handling (there should be a way
> to verify which addresses are acceptable).
>
> Anything else?
>
> Next, the report should be sent to a mailing list selected on the basis of the
> information provided (not necessarily to individual developers, unless there
> are some addresses provided explicitly by the reporter).

The architecture choice seems to be the only thing from your list that
isn't already available in the "Enter a new bug report" dialog of the
kernel Bugzilla.

> IMO, it should be possible to work on the bug using both email and the web
> interface, whichever is preferred by the participant in question, without the
> need to stick to any of them (ie. email messages sent in the corresponding
> email thread should be registered by the bug tracking system and comments
> entered into it should appear as messages in the email thread with the
> appropriate To:, From: and Cc: information).
>
> There surely are more things that we'd like it to do, but the above seem to be
> a reasonable minimum.

Except from the From: header in outgoing emails the kernel Bugzilla
already offers this for years.

>...
> Greetings,
> Rafael

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