On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 04:19:34PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Markus Rechberger wrote:
> > just reading through it and cleaning up some code isn't so difficult
> > and can be done by many people -
>
> Doing cleanups is a good way to get into the matter, to become able to
> eventually fix bugs
Markus Rechberger wrote:
> just reading through it and cleaning up some code isn't so difficult
> and can be done by many people -
Doing cleanups is a good way to get into the matter, to become able to
eventually fix bugs of the difficult type.
> if they're allowed/wanted to do so.
Everybody is
On 6/17/07, Natalie Protasevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/17/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:26:55PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >>> And we should be aware that reverting is only a workaround for the
real
> > >>> problem
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:33:13AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:41:28PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > Talk is cheap, but unless YOU will do it your emails will only be a
> > > > waste of bandwidth.
> > >
> > > Thanks, and good
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 12:33:13AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:41:28PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Talk is cheap, but unless YOU will do it your emails will only be a
waste of bandwidth.
Thanks, and good luck with involving
On 6/17/07, Natalie Protasevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/17/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:26:55PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
And we should be aware that reverting is only a workaround for the
real
problem which lies in our
Markus Rechberger wrote:
just reading through it and cleaning up some code isn't so difficult
and can be done by many people -
Doing cleanups is a good way to get into the matter, to become able to
eventually fix bugs of the difficult type.
if they're allowed/wanted to do so.
Everybody is
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 04:19:34PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
Markus Rechberger wrote:
just reading through it and cleaning up some code isn't so difficult
and can be done by many people -
Doing cleanups is a good way to get into the matter, to become able to
eventually fix bugs of the
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:59:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >...
> > > This is why I've been advocating bugzilla "forget" stuff, for example. I
> > > tend to see bugzilla as
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >...
> > This is why I've been advocating bugzilla "forget" stuff, for example. I
> > tend to see bugzilla as a place where noise accumulates, rather than a
> > place where noise is made
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>...
> This is why I've been advocating bugzilla "forget" stuff, for example. I
> tend to see bugzilla as a place where noise accumulates, rather than a
> place where noise is made into a signal.
>
> Which gets my to the real
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:01:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > The -mm kernel already implements what your proposed PTS would do.
> >
> > Plus it gives testers more or less all patches currently pending
> > inclusion into Linus' tree in one
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:41:28PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > Talk is cheap, but unless YOU will do it your emails will only be a
> > > waste of bandwidth.
> >
> > Thanks, and good luck with involving people with this kind of response!
>
> It's simply
Al Boldi wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:55:47AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
>> > Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>> > > On 18/06/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
[on the tracking of review status of patches]
>> > > > > however we
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:41:28PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:26:20AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > We are talking about _tracking_.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure whether it makes much sense, and it would cost an
> > > >
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:26:20AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > We are talking about _tracking_.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure whether it makes much sense, and it would cost an
> > > enormous amount of time, but tracking patches should be possible
> > >
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:26:20AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:55:47AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > > > On 18/06/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday 17
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:26:20AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:55:47AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 18/06/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:26:20AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
We are talking about _tracking_.
I'm not sure whether it makes much sense, and it would cost an
enormous amount of time, but tracking patches should be possible
without any knowledge
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:41:28PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:26:20AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
We are talking about _tracking_.
I'm not sure whether it makes much sense, and it would cost an
enormous amount of time,
Al Boldi wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:55:47AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 18/06/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
[on the tracking of review status of patches]
however we need to educate each and
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:41:28PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Talk is cheap, but unless YOU will do it your emails will only be a
waste of bandwidth.
Thanks, and good luck with involving people with this kind of response!
It's simply how kernel
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:01:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
The -mm kernel already implements what your proposed PTS would do.
Plus it gives testers more or less all patches currently pending
inclusion into Linus' tree in one kernel they
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
This is why I've been advocating bugzilla forget stuff, for example. I
tend to see bugzilla as a place where noise accumulates, rather than a
place where noise is made into a signal.
Which gets my to the real issue I
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
This is why I've been advocating bugzilla forget stuff, for example. I
tend to see bugzilla as a place where noise accumulates, rather than a
place where noise is made into a
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:59:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
This is why I've been advocating bugzilla forget stuff, for example. I
tend to see bugzilla as a place where
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:55:47AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > > On 18/06/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > > We of course do want to
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:55:47AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > On 18/06/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > We of course do want to minimise the amount of overhead
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:55:47AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 18/06/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
We of course do want to minimise the amount of overhead for each
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 06:55:47AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 18/06/07, Al Boldi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
We of course do want to minimise the amount of
Oleg Verych wrote:
[I wrote]
>> a) Would it save me more time than it costs me to fit into the system
>>(time that can be invested in actual debugging)?
>>This can only be answered after trying it.
>
> I'm not a wizard, if i will answer now: "No." [1:]
>
> [1:] Your User-Agent:
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:50:48 +0200
>
> [...]
>> Current identification of problems and patch association
>> have completely zero level of tracking or automation, while Bugzilla is
>> believed by somebody to have positive efficiency in bug tracking.
>
> I, as maintainer of a small subsystem,
Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> There are different people involved in
>> - patch handling,
>> - bug handling (bugs are reported by end-users),
>> therefore don't forget that PTS and BTS have different requirements.
>
> Sure. But if
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>>
>> I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
>> idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
>> one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions
On 6/19/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
> idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
> one of your mails. Thus hope of having more
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
> idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
> one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions on that.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't actually
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:08:13 +0200
>
>> Crazy development{0}. Somebody knows, that comprehensively testing
>> hibernation is their thing. I don't care about it, i care about foo, bar.
>> Thus i can apply for example lguest patches and implement and test new
>> asm-offset replacement,
Linus,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:01:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > The goal is to get all patches for a maintained subsystem submitted to
> > Linus by the maintainer.
Nice quote. I'm trying to make proposition/convince Adrian, who is
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> On 6/19/2007 4:05 PM, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> The Debian BTS requires you to either write emails with control messages
> >> or generating control messages with
Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> The -mm kernel already implements what your proposed PTS would do.
...
>> Plus it gives testers more or less all patches currently pending
>> inclusion into Linus' tree in one kernel they can test.
>
> Crazy
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> The goal is to get all patches for a maintained subsystem submitted to
> Linus by the maintainer.
Well, to be honest, I've actually over the years tried to have a policy of
*never* really having black-and-white policies.
The fact is, some
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:05:12PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>...
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>...
> > > When patch in sent to this PTS, your lovely
> > >
On 6/19/2007 4:05 PM, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> The Debian BTS requires you to either write emails with control messages
>> or generating control messages with external tools.
...
>> In Bugzilla the same works through a web interface.
...
[Dropping noise for Debbugs, because interested people may join via Gmane]
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > [Dear Debbug developers, i wish your ideas will be useful.]
> >
> > * From: Linus Torvalds
>
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> * From: Linus Torvalds
> * Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
> * Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > I do agree. It _sounds_ like a great idea to try to control the
> > flow of patches better,
>
> There were some ideas, i will try to summarize:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> [Dear Debbug developers, i wish your ideas will be useful.]
>
> * From: Linus Torvalds
> * Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
> * Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
> >>
> >>
Natalie Protasevich wrote:
> On 6/18/07, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> In the end plenty of statistics and hardware compatibility list
>> could be made. For example, that would make my life easier knowing
>> what level of compatibility Linux can offer for old
Natalie Protasevich wrote:
On 6/18/07, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
In the end plenty of statistics and hardware compatibility list
could be made. For example, that would make my life easier knowing
what level of compatibility Linux can offer for old HP9000
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
[Dear Debbug developers, i wish your ideas will be useful.]
* From: Linus Torvalds
* Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
* Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
Sorry to be a wet
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
* From: Linus Torvalds
* Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
* Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
I do agree. It _sounds_ like a great idea to try to control the
flow of patches better,
There were some ideas, i will try to summarize:
* New
[Dropping noise for Debbugs, because interested people may join via Gmane]
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
[Dear Debbug developers, i wish your ideas will be useful.]
* From: Linus Torvalds
*
On 6/19/2007 4:05 PM, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The Debian BTS requires you to either write emails with control messages
or generating control messages with external tools.
...
In Bugzilla the same works through a web interface.
...
Basic
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:05:12PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
...
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
...
When patch in sent to this PTS, your lovely
checkpatch/check-whatever-crap-has-being-sent
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The goal is to get all patches for a maintained subsystem submitted to
Linus by the maintainer.
Well, to be honest, I've actually over the years tried to have a policy of
*never* really having black-and-white policies.
The fact is, some maintainers
Oleg Verych wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The -mm kernel already implements what your proposed PTS would do.
...
Plus it gives testers more or less all patches currently pending
inclusion into Linus' tree in one kernel they can test.
Crazy
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
On 6/19/2007 4:05 PM, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The Debian BTS requires you to either write emails with control messages
or generating control messages with external tools.
Linus,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:01:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The goal is to get all patches for a maintained subsystem submitted to
Linus by the maintainer.
Nice quote. I'm trying to make proposition/convince Adrian, who is in
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:08:13 +0200
Crazy development{0}. Somebody knows, that comprehensively testing
hibernation is their thing. I don't care about it, i care about foo, bar.
Thus i can apply for example lguest patches and implement and test new
asm-offset replacement, *easily*.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions on that.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't actually responing
On 6/19/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions on
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions on that.
Oleg Verych wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
There are different people involved in
- patch handling,
- bug handling (bugs are reported by end-users),
therefore don't forget that PTS and BTS have different requirements.
Sure. But if tracking was
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:50:48 +0200
[...]
Current identification of problems and patch association
have completely zero level of tracking or automation, while Bugzilla is
believed by somebody to have positive efficiency in bug tracking.
I, as maintainer of a small subsystem, can
Oleg Verych wrote:
[I wrote]
a) Would it save me more time than it costs me to fit into the system
(time that can be invested in actual debugging)?
This can only be answered after trying it.
I'm not a wizard, if i will answer now: No. [1:]
[1:] Your User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows;
[Dear Debbug developers, i wish your ideas will be useful.]
* From: Linus Torvalds
* Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
* Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I've seen those sort of things
>> before, and they
On 6/18/07, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Natalie Protasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : 18 juin 2007 18:56
>
> On 6/18/07, Martin Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Natalie Protasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : 18 juin 2007 18:56
>
> On 6/18/07, Martin Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do `git-log
> > >> > random-driver.c|grep Tested-by" to find people
> Maybe searching free text fields can then be implemented. Then every
> message exchange in bugzilla can be used for extracting such info -
> questions about HW specifics are asked a lot, almost in every one.
> It's a shame we cant' use this information. I was once searching for
> "VIA" and got
On 6/18/07, Martin Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure, simplicity is a key - but most of reporters on bugs are pretty
> professional folks (or very well rounded amateurs :) We can try still
> why not? the worst that can happen will be empty fields.
mmm. added complexity and interface
Sure, simplicity is a key - but most of reporters on bugs are pretty
professional folks (or very well rounded amateurs :) We can try still
why not? the worst that can happen will be empty fields.
mmm. added complexity and interface clutter for little or no benefit
is what I'm trying to avoid -
On 6/18/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
>
> Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I've seen those sort of things
> before, and they just don't seem to work, especially in the
> environment we're in with such a massive diversity of hardware.
I do
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
>
> Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I've seen those sort of things
> before, and they just don't seem to work, especially in the
> environment we're in with such a massive diversity of hardware.
I do agree. It _sounds_ like a great idea to try to control
Natalie Protasevich wrote:
On 6/18/07, Martin Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do `git-log
>> > random-driver.c|grep Tested-by" to find people who can test
>> > your changes for you.
>>
>> You would'nt even need to search in GIT. Maybie
> So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do `git-log
> random-driver.c|grep Tested-by" to find people who can test
> your changes for you.
You would'nt even need to search in GIT. Maybie even when ever a
patchset is being proposed a mail could be sent to appropriate
hardware/or
On 6/18/07, Martin Bligh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do `git-log
>> > random-driver.c|grep Tested-by" to find people who can test
>> > your changes for you.
>>
>> You would'nt even need to search in GIT. Maybie even when ever a
>> patchset
On 6/18/07, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
> Andrew Morton
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:15:15 +0200 Stefan Richter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Tested-by
>
> Tested-by
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
> Andrew Morton
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:15:15 +0200 Stefan Richter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Tested-by
>
> Tested-by would be good too. Because over time, we will
> generate a list
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
Andrew Morton
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:15:15 +0200 Stefan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tested-by
Tested-by would be good too. Because over time, we will
generate a list of people who
On 6/18/07, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de
Andrew Morton
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:15:15 +0200 Stefan Richter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tested-by
Tested-by would be good too.
On 6/18/07, Martin Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do `git-log
random-driver.c|grep Tested-by to find people who can test
your changes for you.
You would'nt even need to search in GIT. Maybie even when ever a
patchset is being proposed a
So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do `git-log
random-driver.c|grep Tested-by to find people who can test
your changes for you.
You would'nt even need to search in GIT. Maybie even when ever a
patchset is being proposed a mail could be sent to appropriate
hardware/or feature
Natalie Protasevich wrote:
On 6/18/07, Martin Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do `git-log
random-driver.c|grep Tested-by to find people who can test
your changes for you.
You would'nt even need to search in GIT. Maybie even when ever a
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I've seen those sort of things
before, and they just don't seem to work, especially in the
environment we're in with such a massive diversity of hardware.
I do agree. It _sounds_ like a great idea to try to control the
On 6/18/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I've seen those sort of things
before, and they just don't seem to work, especially in the
environment we're in with such a massive diversity of hardware.
I do
Sure, simplicity is a key - but most of reporters on bugs are pretty
professional folks (or very well rounded amateurs :) We can try still
why not? the worst that can happen will be empty fields.
mmm. added complexity and interface clutter for little or no benefit
is what I'm trying to avoid -
On 6/18/07, Martin Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, simplicity is a key - but most of reporters on bugs are pretty
professional folks (or very well rounded amateurs :) We can try still
why not? the worst that can happen will be empty fields.
mmm. added complexity and interface clutter
Maybe searching free text fields can then be implemented. Then every
message exchange in bugzilla can be used for extracting such info -
questions about HW specifics are asked a lot, almost in every one.
It's a shame we cant' use this information. I was once searching for
VIA and got zero
-Message d'origine-
De : Natalie Protasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : 18 juin 2007 18:56
On 6/18/07, Martin Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do `git-log
random-driver.c|grep Tested-by to find people who can test your
On 6/18/07, Fortier,Vincent [Montreal] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Message d'origine-
De : Natalie Protasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : 18 juin 2007 18:56
On 6/18/07, Martin Bligh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do `git-log
[Dear Debbug developers, i wish your ideas will be useful.]
* From: Linus Torvalds
* Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
* Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I've seen those sort of things
before, and they just
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:15:15 +0200 Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tested-by
Tested-by would be good too. Because over time, we will generate a list of
people who own the relevant hardware and who are prepared to test changes.
So if you make changes to random-driver.c you can do
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 18/06/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > > On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > We of course do want to minimise the amount of overhead for each
> > > > developer. I'm a strong believer in specialisation:
On Monday 18 June 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 June 2007 23:49, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:53:41 +0200 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[EMAIL
> > > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [--snip--]
> > >
> > > yup,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> In case of being maintainer "bastard approach" is more about not discouraging
> developers by holding patches for too long than about getting credit.
The maintainer who is about to suffocate in newly contributed code is
actually a lucky guy: He can ask his
On Monday 18 June 2007, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > despite the fact that audit takes
> > more time/knowledge then making the patch you will end up with zero credit
> > if patch turns out to be (luckily) correct. Even if you find out issues
> > and report them you
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> despite the fact that audit takes
> more time/knowledge then making the patch you will end up with zero credit
> if patch turns out to be (luckily) correct. Even if you find out issues
> and report them you are still on mercy of author for being credited
If we
On Sunday, 17 June 2007 23:49, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:53:41 +0200 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
[--snip--]
> >
> > yup, Reviewed-by: is good and I do think we should start adopting it,
On 18/06/07, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > We of course do want to minimise the amount of overhead for each
> > developer. I'm a strong believer in specialisation: rather than
> > requiring that *every*
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > We of course do want to minimise the amount of overhead for each
> > developer. I'm a strong believer in specialisation: rather than
> > requiring that *every* developer/maintainer integrate new steps in their
> >
On Sunday 17 June 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:53:41 +0200 Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > IMO we should concentrate more on preventing regressions than on fixing
> > them.
> > In the long-term preventing bugs is cheaper than fixing
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
