From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gordan Bobic Subject: Re: [Xen-users] xen forum Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 23:14:18 +0100 Message-ID: <519FE63A.6070001@bobich.net> References: <20130521142917.GO492@phenom.dumpdata.com> <1369148649.60268.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <20130521163102.GB3669@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20130524140402.GA3750@phenom.dumpdata.com> <519FC196.4090506@bobich.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Ian Murray , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/24/2013 10:36 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>>>> It would be easier for us if the bug reports and such were posted on >>>>>> xen-devel. >>>>>> Please consult http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html >>>>>> when >>>>>> doing it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My own experience is that posts (at least from me) are regularly >>>>> missed/ignored on the devel list, including a signed patch, so I >>>>> personally think a bug tracker would be a better option. Bug trackers >>>>> don't (or at least shouldn't :) ) forget or miss. That's they're raison >>>>> d'etre. I honestly don't know how anyone can do business using this >>>>> list, but that's just my humble opinion. >>>> >>>> Did you also look in the MAINTAINERS file to make sure you copied the >>>> right >>>> maintainer? >>>> >>>> The reason for skipping the Bugzilla system is that it is soo out of date >>>> that >>>> we don't use it anymore. >>> >>> >>> Actually I recall there is a secondary reason too - which is that we get >>> copied >>> on distros bugs that affect Xen. For example in Fedora I (and Dariof) get >>> copied on >>> any Linux kernel issues that are related to Xen. In Debian I believe Ian >>> Campbell >>> gets copied as well. For SuSE it is Jan and Olaf. Not sure about the other >>> distros. >>> >>> And then if you use Oracle Linux, I get copied too. Then there is the >>> internal bug system >>> if you using OVM and the Linux kernel bug-system where I get copied too. >>> >>> That is a lot of bug systems to keep track of - and since most of the users >>> use a >>> distro they end up using their distro bug-system. And then Xen's bugzilla >>> system >>> became less and less important to keep track of stuff. >>> >>> Oh, and there are the five mailing lists and the fire-hose LKML. Yuck, soo >>> many emails. >> >> Surely the sensible thing to do is to have one Xen bug tracking system and >> only use that. If distro maintainers wish to file bugs in the Xen bug tracker >> for Xen bugs, they are free to do so, same as any other user. Xen is the >> upstream project - Xen bugs should be fed from distros up to Xen, not the >> other way around. Xen bugs are then tracked with the single Xen bug tracker >> and they are all in one place, searchable reviewable and easy to keep track >> of. Is this not obvious? Am I missing missing an issue that has been >> too-subtly implied but not explicitly stated? > > In an ideal world maybe. What usually happens is that distros keep using > their bug trackers and keep recommending their users to fill bug to > them. These bug trackers get out of sync with the upstream bug tracker. That's distro problem, not a Xen problem, and should not be expected to be a Xen problem, nor should it ever become a Xen problem. > Moreover some people don't use bug trackers and submit bugs as emails > anyway, as a consequence the bug tracker usually needs to be kept > up-to-date manually by one or more members of the community. So stop accepting emailed bug reports. If somebody emails one, tell them to create a bugzilla account and file it there. If that is too hard, they clearly don't care about the bug enough. It's no better or worse a filtering system than seeing who is going to bother bumping an email thread if it gets missed. > In the long run they tend to be "left behind". > In Linux it has been tried several times to introduce bug trackers, > most of the times failing completely. My preferred Linux distribution uses a bugzilla bug tracker and it works very well indeed. >>> It is mostly FIFO with the 'oh wow, this needs to be fixed NOW!' preempting >>> it. >>> In all honestly it sucks as a track system, but I am not really sure of how >>> else to do this >>> without spending a massive time doing 'click here on this button and add >>> this comment, >>> set dependency on this bug' and instead concentrate my time in an editor. >>> >>> I believe we need something that can bridge both of these - helping >>> developers to >>> know about bugs and also track them so users know that things are done and >>> not ignored. >>> And so low maintaince for developers that they can focus on looking at code >>> all day. >> >> I don't think this is a new problem, and I do think the problem has been >> solved many times and solved well. If there is an obvious flaw in what I said >> above, please do point it out. But claiming that a broadcast system is bad and >> therefore ignoring a single-point tracking system is the way forward is as >> much of a contradiction in terms as I can imagine on this subject. > > It is not a new problem but it has never been solved properly, just give > a look at the status of bug trackers in the linux kernel to get an idea. > Lunchpad was supposed to be the bug tracker to rule them all, but it > ended up being just one more bug tracker. It works just fine for RH and Fedora. So clearly the problem must be in something else. > That said, I don't mean that it's all hopeless and doomed, you certainly > raised some good points and I think we have room for improvement. > It's just not as simple as it seems. > Personally I am in favor of introducing a bug tracker if we have a way > to integrate it into our current process and make sure it's kept up to > date. I sincerely hope it happens. Gordan