From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: Re: networking bugs and bugme.osdl.org Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:27:09 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <34700000.1056760028@[10.10.2.4]> References: <3EFCC1EB.2070904@candelatech.com> <20030627.151906.102571486.davem@redhat.com> <3EFCC6EE.3020106@candelatech.com> <20030627.170022.74744550.davem@redhat.com> <20030628001954.GD18676@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: greearb@candelatech.com, davidel@xmailserver.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: Larry McVoy , "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20030628001954.GD18676@work.bitmover.com> Content-Disposition: inline Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --Larry McVoy wrote (on Friday, June 27, 2003 17:19:54 -0700): > On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 05:00:22PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: >> From: Ben Greear >> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:36:30 -0700 >> >> So, you'd be happy so long as bugz sent mail to the netdev mailing >> lists instead of to you? >> >> The best power I have to scale is the delete key in my email >> reader, when I delete an email it's gone and that's it. >> >> bugme bugs don't have this attribute, they are like emails that >> persist forever until someone does something about them, and this is >> the big problem I have with it. > > I've proposed this before and nobody listened but maybe this time... > > I think what you want is a bug database which distinguishes between > filed bugs and reviewed bugs. You want to capture all bug reports, > as Alan says (he's right, there is no question about it, you need to > capture the data). You also want an *automatic* way for bugs to just > rot. Anyone can file a bug but unless someone with expertise in the > area reviews the bug and agrees to do something about it, the bug rots. > > It's level 1 (capture) and level 2 (we really need to do something about > this some day). Level 1 will have zillions of duplicates and tons of > other noise. Level 2 should be a small list, no duplicates, carefully > managed. That's a trivial change to make if you want it. we just add a "reviewed" / "certified" state between "new" and "assigned". Yes, might be a good idea. I'm not actually that convinced that "assigned" is overly useful in the context of open-source, but that's a separate discussion. I'm hoping to get a discussion going at Kernel Summit / OLS on how people want this to evolve, I'll add this one to the list ... thanks. M.