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

Daniel Walker
2007-08-27T15:47:51Z

On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 17:26 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 27/08/07, Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 13:38 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > > On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> [..]
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Should we get the regression field fix before? Or had you planned on
> > just bypassing that completely ?
>
> IMO solution proposed by David http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/27/21 seems
> to be most reasonable.

Now that I'm looking at the kernel bugzilla .. If you set the kernel
version to 2.6.22 and set the "Regression" check box you could denote
the fact that it's a regression in that kernel version ..

I don't know if this URL is going to come out right,

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&tree=Mainline&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&kernel_version_type=allwordssubstr&kernel_version=2.6.22&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=ASSIGNED&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&regression=include&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=

That should be open bugs , kernel version 2.6.22, with the regression
check box set ..

So you may not need a master tracking bug ..

Daniel