On Monday, 30 April 2007 00:00, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:00:28AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, 29 April 2007 22:43, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:18:10PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > >... > > > > But emailed reports _are_ saved anyway and we _know_ how to get a copy. > > > > From lkml.org, for example. Why don't we use that? The only missing > > > > piece > > > > is the 'keep a list' thing, but that's not a rocket science, IMHO. > > > > > > > > [For example, you can create a bugzilla entry with a link to the > > > > lkml.org copy > > > > of the relevant message, so why to require the reporter to file the > > > > report with > > > > the bugzilla himself?] > > > > > > > > _Moreover_, some LKML archives, for example at > > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel, > > > > keep track of each thread separately, so you can browse any of them at > > > > any > > > > time. In particular, you can see the _history_ of each bug report sent > > > > to LKML > > > > if you have a link to any message in its thread. > > > > > > > > Really, if we ask reporters to put '[BUG]' in the subjects of their > > > > messages, > > > > you'll even be able to use the lkml.org archives plus wget and a couple > > > > of > > > > shell scripts to cherry pick the links to all bug reports sent to the > > > > list > > > > within a given time interval. > > > > > > > > All of this functionality is out there already. > > > >... > > > > > > How can I get the functionality "show me all unfixed SATA bugs"? > > > > > > That's one of the important functionalities of every bug tracking > > > system. > > > > That's the missing piece, obviously. > > > > BTW, I didn't want to say that one could entirely replace a bug-tracking > > system > > with tracking the LKML archives. What I wanted to say was that the email > > messages sent to the LKML were easily trackable and could be hooked up into > > a > > bug-tracking system, for example with the help of URLs. > > > > In such a setup people could send initial reports to the LKML and the links > > to > > these messages might be put into a bug-tracking system as soon as it turned > > out that the bugs were worthy of tracking. > > Who is doing this "might be put", and why don't you start with asking > the submitter to submit bugs in a bug tracking system and forward the > bug report from the bug tracking system (manually or automatically) to > the developers and linux-kernel?
Because quite often I know what the problem is after having asked the reporter a couple of simple questions or I can forward his report to a list on which there are the right people and the problem gets fixed quickly, so it just doesn't need to be formally registered. The problem with the bugzilla is that it requires a considerable setup for each bug which is a loss of time if the bug is trivial. Using the bugzilla for handling trivial bugs just doesn't make sense, IMHO. It's too heavywieght for that. [It _is_ useful nevertheless. For example, the suspend metabug that you've created for me is really a nice thing, so thanks a lot again. :-) Perhaps something like this might be used for tracking the regressions ...] Unfortunately, you can't say whether or not the bug is trivial until you see the report. If you've got it from bugzilla, you're stuck with it, so it's just more efficient to use something else in the initial phase of resolving problems. Greetings, Rafael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
