et? If the bugs were already forwarded to
linux-kernel (and perhaps, to linux- when possible, too), we
would save at least two days of this long "Linux 2.6.21" thread...
For I somehow feel that most people here dislike bugzilla because of
misconceptions - which only arose as
David Miller wrote:
> I reported a bug that eats people's hard disks due to a bug
> in the X.ORG PCI support code on sparc, NOBODY has fixed
> the bug in 2 years even though a full bugzilla entry with
> even a full patch fix is in there.
Well but at least they could find it again if they wanted
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 07:37:25PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > My personal experience with bugzilla is that it's very unfriendly to
> > reporters. IMHO it's suitable for tracking unresolved problems along with
> > debug patches, system information etc., but not for _reporting_ new ones.
>
> What
On Monday 30 April 2007, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> You can't have it even do a search to see if it already has something
>> similar without creating an account and logging in. Since I'm out of wall
>> space, and the missus is bugging me to paint over all
It might not be bad to write up an email-based BTS-alike bug-tracking
system just for the Linux kernel. It should probably even be
implemented 100% via email at first, with a web-based status viewer
as a later add-on. Here's a possible email format:
[kbugger: action1 arg1 arg2 ..., action
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> You can't have it even do a search to see if it already has something similar
> without creating an account and logging in. Since I'm out of wall space, and
> the missus is bugging me to paint over all that, I left.
Well, thats not a bugzilla problem.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> If it is considered useful it shouldn't be a problem to automatically
> forward all incoming Bugzilla bugs to linux-kernel.
Yes, most of it to linux-kernel, some components (netdev@, architecture) to
a more specific list.
Gruss
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe f
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 11:04:10PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> The kernel Bugzilla currently contains 1600 open bugs.
>> Adrian, why do you keep harping on this, and ignoring reality?
>> Kernel bugzilla has 1600 open bugs
On Sunday 29 April 2007, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>Hi Diego,
>
>On 29/04/07, Diego Calleja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[..]
>
>> So unless someone is willing to write such tool (which I doubt, since it
>> doesn't looks easy), all this discussion seems pointless, and we should
>> stick with this htt
[Oops, the first try of this mail got out from my local address, sorry]
On 2007.04.29 19:55:35 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 03:15:42PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > This means we need people who figure out who to assign bugs too.
> > Aka bugmasters.
> >
> > BTW one big prob
Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Folks might want to take a look at the Debian Bug Tracking System
> (BTS). It has a web interface which you can use to query history, but
> *everything* is e-mail driven, and the way you submit, close, update,
> tag/classfy bugs --- everything --- is v
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 07:55:35PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> but if the goal is to
> make it easier to archive and track information about a bug, at
> *least* with the Debian BTS, when you reply to an e-mail message, the
> reply is automatically appended to the bug log!
bugzilla does that
On Mon, April 30, 2007 01:41, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> Developers are just humans and if they have no incentive to
> act on a bug report they will ignore it. I think this is a
> fact that you have to deal with.
Reporters are just humans too and if they have no incentive to
post bugs they won't
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 03:15:42PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> This means we need people who figure out who to assign bugs too.
> Aka bugmasters.
>
> BTW one big problem in our current bugzilla is that a lot of people
> cannot reassign bugs they don't own. I sometimes see bugs that I don't
> own bu
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007, Indan Zupancic wrote:
> On Mon, April 30, 2007 00:36, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> > The lesson to learn is that there are some very valid
> > reasons why bug reports get ignored (some not mentioned here),
> > and there's nothing you can do about it. And it has nothing to
> >
Hello,
On Mon, April 30, 2007 00:36, Johannes Stezenbach wrote:
> The lesson to learn is that there are some very valid
> reasons why bug reports get ignored (some not mentioned here),
> and there's nothing you can do about it. And it has nothing to
> do with the method or tool used for reporting
On Sunday, 29 April 2007 23:51, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:10:28 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
> > What exactly is the purpose of the 2.6.21 regressions list in the Wiki?
>
> AFAIK, submitting its contents to the list periodically CCing the developers,
> li
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
> The actual list of known regressions is wiki based. Everyone can
> update bug status, add references etc.
Well do they know about it?
Also something a little more structured would seem better for this.
How do you query a wiki?
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On 30/04/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:33:30AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 00:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > And it failed because many regressions still stayed unfixed and some
> > even undebugged.
>
> No it failed not. It
On 30/04/07, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right. Simply because these lists are assembled by someone
>
> - who knows how to pick that reports from the mailinglists
> - who knows how to sort them in a useful way
> - who knows how to add the relevant folks on CC
That all needs to be don
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:33:30AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 00:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > And it failed because many regressions still stayed unfixed and some
> > even undebugged.
>
> No it failed not. It is not perfect. Way more bugs, which have been
> fix
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 01:33:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >
> > > The kernel Bugzilla currently contains 1600 open bugs.
> >
> > Adrian, why do you keep harping on this, and ignoring reality?
> >
> >
> Right. Simply because these lists are assembled by someone
>
> - who knows how to pick that reports from the mailinglists
> - who knows how to sort them in a useful way
> - who knows how to add the relevant folks on CC
That all needs to be done by someone initially yes. But then tracking what
On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 00:19 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Don't be silly, did any of the developers say, that he has spare time to
> > read your regression lists ?
>
> It worked because several people (including Linus) emphasized that
> fixing regressions from this list was important.
Right. Sim
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 11:52:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 23:21 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >> > It's not great but it's the best clone of you we've found 8)
> > >>
> > >> What exactly is the purpose of the 2.6.21 regressions list in the Wiki?
> > >
> > > It's for -
> BECAUSE EMAIL ENGAGES PEOPLE AND BUGZILLA DOES NOT!
>
> Nobody looks at the bugzilla because there is too much junk in there
> to make the signal any useful to search for, there's simply too much
> noise.
That means just x.org doesn't have a working bugmaster setup.
Again a technical solution d
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 05:27:56PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 02:05:42AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 04:40:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >...
> > > What's the difference between bugzilla and lkml.org? Both have search
> > > buttons. Bot
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 02:05:42AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 04:40:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >...
> > What's the difference between bugzilla and lkml.org? Both have search
> > buttons. Both archive the old stuff. Both can
On Sunday, 29 April 2007 22:52, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:18:10PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > [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
> > wit
On Sunday 29 of April 2007, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> > I reported a bug that eats people's hard disks due to a bug
> > in the X.ORG PCI support code on sparc, NOBODY has fixed
> > the bug in 2 years even though a full bugzilla entry with
> > even a full patch fix is in there.
>
> And how fast w
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,
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
El Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:10:28 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> What exactly is the purpose of the 2.6.21 regressions list in the Wiki?
AFAIK, submitting its contents to the list periodically CCing the developers,
like you did with your lists.
If developers care to fix it or not
On Sun, 2007-04-29 at 23:21 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> > It's not great but it's the best clone of you we've found 8)
> >>
> >> What exactly is the purpose of the 2.6.21 regressions list in the Wiki?
> >
> > It's for -stable team.
> >...
>
> Did Greg or Chris say they have spare time for going
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:26:43 +0200
> > I reported a bug that eats people's hard disks due to a bug
> > in the X.ORG PCI support code on sparc, NOBODY has fixed
> > the bug in 2 years even though a full bugzilla entry with
> > even a full patch fix is in ther
Diego Calleja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :
[...]
> So unless someone is willing to write such tool (which I doubt, since it
> doesn't looks easy), all this discussion seems pointless, and we should
> stick with this http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions page
> which is showing to be quite useful :)
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 02:05:42AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 04:40:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >...
> > What's the difference between bugzilla and lkml.org? Both have search
> > buttons. Both archive the old stuff. Both can be pointed to.
>
> Mailing lists
> I reported a bug that eats people's hard disks due to a bug
> in the X.ORG PCI support code on sparc, NOBODY has fixed
> the bug in 2 years even though a full bugzilla entry with
> even a full patch fix is in there.
Well but at least they could find it again if they wanted.
If you sent it by ema
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 11:16:51PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 29/04/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:56:57PM +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
>> > El Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:17:29 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> escribió:
>> >
>> > > Bugzilla migh
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > Kernel bugzilla has 1600 open bugs BECAUSE IT SUCKS.
>
> OK, how do you suggest to track bugs in a way that doesn't suck?
I've tried to explain.
Bugzilla can be one _part_ of it, but anybody who thinks it's the "main
part" is really not being r
On 29/04/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 11:16:51PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 29/04/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What exactly is the purpose of the 2.6.21 regressions list in the Wiki?
>
> It's for -stable team.
>...
Did Greg or Chri
On 29/04/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:56:57PM +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:17:29 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
> > Bugzilla might not be perfect, but it works and it's better than doing
> > it by hand.
>
> The g
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:56:57PM +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
> El Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:17:29 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>
> > Bugzilla might not be perfect, but it works and it's better than doing
> > it by hand.
>
> The good thing about the wiki is that it doesn't exclude
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The kernel Bugzilla currently contains 1600 open bugs.
Adrian, why do you keep harping on this, and ignoring reality?
Kernel bugzilla has 1600 open bugs BECAUSE IT SUCKS.
How many of those are interesting and valid? How many of
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 01:33:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > The kernel Bugzilla currently contains 1600 open bugs.
>
> Adrian, why do you keep harping on this, and ignoring reality?
>
> Kernel bugzilla has 1600 open bugs BECAUSE IT SUCK
El Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:17:29 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> Bugzilla might not be perfect, but it works and it's better than doing
> it by hand.
The good thing about the wiki is that it doesn't exclude bugzilla. It's
just a "regressions list", it doesn't intends to replace bu
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 10:18:10PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> [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?]
Last time I did this, bugzilla at osdl.o
David Miller wrote:
Don't think that's true. There are plenty of projects who only
accept bugs through bugzilla (mozilla, various distributions, etc.)
and I don't see any evidence of your claim being true.
That explains why my bugs don't get looked at for months if
not years when I submit the
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.
>
> [
On 29/04/07 19:09, Andi Kleen wrote:
- a lot of reporters will not use bugzilla, because it's damn
inconvenient even for reporting. If you propose something that uses
Don't think that's true. There are plenty of projects who only
accept bugs through bugzilla (mozilla, various distributions
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> The kernel Bugzilla currently contains 1600 open bugs.
Adrian, why do you keep harping on this, and ignoring reality?
Kernel bugzilla has 1600 open bugs BECAUSE IT SUCKS.
How many of those are interesting and valid? How many of them are
relevant? H
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:40:07PM +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
>...
> So unless someone is willing to write such tool (which I doubt, since it
> doesn't looks easy), all this discussion seems pointless, and we should
> stick with this http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions page
> which is showi
On Sunday, 29 April 2007 21:14, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:50:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, 29 April 2007 19:37, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > My personal experience with bugzilla is that it's very unfriendly to
> > > > reporters. IMHO it's suitable for tracki
From: Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 20:09:09 +0200
> Don't think that's true. There are plenty of projects who only
> accept bugs through bugzilla (mozilla, various distributions, etc.)
> and I don't see any evidence of your claim being true.
That explains why my bugs don
Hi Diego,
On 29/04/07, Diego Calleja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
So unless someone is willing to write such tool (which I doubt, since it
doesn't looks easy), all this discussion seems pointless, and we should
stick with this http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions page
which is showing t
So far, it seems that most of people's opinion WRT to bug reporting and
trackingcan
be divided into 2 groups:
- People who argues (and they're right) that bugzilla and web interfaces in
general
suck and that email + an "Adrian-like" solution works better
- People who argues that a bug tracker
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:09:09PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > - a lot of reporters will not use bugzilla, because it's damn
> >inconvenient even for reporting. If you propose something that uses
>
> Don't think that's true. There are plenty of projects who only
> accept bugs through bugzi
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:50:55PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 April 2007 19:37, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > My personal experience with bugzilla is that it's very unfriendly to
> > > reporters. IMHO it's suitable for tracking unresolved problems along with
> > > debug patches, sys
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> - You are required to select a category and 'component' for your report, which
> often is difficult (especially if you're not a kernel expert)
> - You need to have a bugzilla account (or to create one, if you don't)
Amen.
Both of those are sho
On Sunday, 29 April 2007 20:09, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > - a lot of reporters will not use bugzilla, because it's damn
> >inconvenient even for reporting. If you propose something that uses
>
> Don't think that's true. There are plenty of projects who only
> accept bugs through bugzilla (mozil
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> I suspect the real reason is more "Linus doesn't like web interfaces
> for no particular good reason". Not much can be done about that.
Right. Dig your head in the sand, and ignore all the other people who
piped up and said they hate bugzilla too, and
On Sunday, 29 April 2007 19:37, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > My personal experience with bugzilla is that it's very unfriendly to
> > reporters. IMHO it's suitable for tracking unresolved problems along with
> > debug patches, system information etc., but not for _reporting_ new ones.
>
> What did you f
> - a lot of reporters will not use bugzilla, because it's damn
>inconvenient even for reporting. If you propose something that uses
Don't think that's true. There are plenty of projects who only
accept bugs through bugzilla (mozilla, various distributions, etc.)
and I don't see any eviden
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:07:43AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Yes. But not using bugzilla.
>
> And what would you use instead?
Didn't you even *read* my email?
I already told you: we have real bugs getting reported and fixed that
don't hit b
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Besides the primary point of bug tracking is not to be friendly
> to someone, but to (a) fix the bugs and (b) know how many bugs
> there for a given release. Any replacement would need to solve
> this problem too.
>
> Email does not solve it as far as
> My personal experience with bugzilla is that it's very unfriendly to
> reporters. IMHO it's suitable for tracking unresolved problems along with
> debug patches, system information etc., but not for _reporting_ new ones.
What did you find unfriendly?
While I also cannot say I love it I don't
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:07:43AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > The thing is, bugzilla is totally broken because it's designed to help
> > > track bugs, but it's *not* designed to actually ha
On Sunday, 29 April 2007 18:07, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > The thing is, bugzilla is totally broken because it's designed to help
> > > track bugs, but it's *not* designed to actually handle the much
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> - Ask more people to just categorize and reassign bugs (anybody interested?)
>> - Give more people in bugzilla the power to reassign arbitary bugs
>> (bugzilla maintainers would need to do that)
>
> I think both of these are good
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > The thing is, bugzilla is totally broken because it's designed to help
> > track bugs, but it's *not* designed to actually handle the much harder
> > problem, which is to actually get the *right* develo
Le Sunday 29 April 2007 13:18:31 Jiri Kosina, vous avez écrit :
>
> Hi Vincent,
Hi Jiri,
>
> yes, the device is messed up, but it shouldn't have any consequences for
> you - the HID driver is able to correctly handle that, so as soon as we
> don't need to add any extra quirks for such dev
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > That's exactly where Linus' "drop any bug reports that are more than a
> > week old" suggestion is completely flawed - no matter what the submitter
> > does, how often he tests latest kernels, noone wil
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Vincent ETIENNE wrote:
> > No, it isn't a problem in the USB core. The device itself is messed up;
> > it really does report idVendor and idProduct both equal to 0.
> So is it just a scary trace but without consequence that i could ignored
> ? May i ask you what is the devic
Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:58:09AM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
>> I totally disagree here, bugzilla is a very good tool. If someone is
>> too lazy to look at it it's his problem.
>
> I'm glad we finally found _the_ person using it !
>
> More seriously, it's so much a co
I wrote:
> Joining duplicate reports at a mailinglist involves responding to
> multiple threads and send links into web archives of the list, which
> happens to be redundant to and disparate from your local e-mail storage.
> I can't see how this aspect of bug-handling works easier on mailinglists.
David Lang wrote:
> I'll say that as a user I hate having to deal with bugzilla.
>
> there's nothing more frustrating then spending a good chunk of time
> trying to find a similar bug, then jumping through all the bugzilla
> hoops to file a report to eventually (days/weeks later) get a message
> '
On Sat, 2007-04-28 at 20:41 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:04:16 +0200
>
> > Bugzilla has an email interface.
> > Andrew forwards bugs from Bugzilla to developers.
>
> Therefore, bugzilla only works at all when Andrew forwards things
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:58:09AM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
> I totally disagree here, bugzilla is a very good tool. If someone is
> too lazy to look at it it's his problem.
If you think so, try reading my email and responding constructively
on how the issues there can be resolved.
That em
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:49:04AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:27:01PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:53:20PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > We are already quite good at ignoring bug reports that come through
> > > linux-kernel, and it's an _a
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, David Miller wrote:
From: "Markus Rechberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:58:09 +0200
On 4/29/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
We are already quite good at ignoring bug reports that come through
l
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 12:58:09AM +0200, Markus Rechberger wrote:
> On 4/29/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >>
> >> We are already quite good at ignoring bug reports that come through
> >> linux-kernel, and it's an _advantage_ of t
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:04:16 +0200
> Bugzilla has an email interface.
> Andrew forwards bugs from Bugzilla to developers.
Therefore, bugzilla only works at all when Andrew forwards things
around by-hand.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsu
From: "Markus Rechberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 00:58:09 +0200
> On 4/29/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >
> > > We are already quite good at ignoring bug reports that come through
> > > linux-kernel, and it
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:07:30 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> >
> > Go to http://bugzilla.kernel.org. Hit query. Find the box that says
> > "Bug Changes, Only bugs changed in the last __ days". Stick 7 in it.
> >
> > 74 bugs f
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 08:11:30 +1000 Neil Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday April 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Yes, human involvement from someone with half a brain would be better.
> > Andrew does a lot of that. Not a particularly good use of talent really.
> > but still.
>
>
On 4/29/07, Bob Tracy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote:
> > How else should bugs get handled, sending them to the lkml?
>
> Actually, looking at Adrian's regression lists, yes. lkml worked better
> than bugzilla did. By at _least_ a f
On 4/29/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote:
>
> I totally disagree here, bugzilla is a very good tool. If someone is
> too lazy to look at it it's his problem.
You must be doing things very differently from a lot of other people if
you th
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote:
> > How else should bugs get handled, sending them to the lkml?
>
> Actually, looking at Adrian's regression lists, yes. lkml worked better
> than bugzilla did. By at _least_ a factor of two.
Since 1992, lkml (with "Cc:" to th
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> I think more than half a brain is needed to do this well. You need a
> reasonable understanding of how all the bits of the kernel work
> together so that you have a good chance of sending the bug in the right
> direction.
Yes. However, even if you jus
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
> Go to http://bugzilla.kernel.org. Hit query. Find the box that says
> "Bug Changes, Only bugs changed in the last __ days". Stick 7 in it.
>
> 74 bugs found.
>
> Not hard to do.
And what part of the "directed" did you miss?
Do you really expect
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 04:40:31PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>...
> What's the difference between bugzilla and lkml.org? Both have search
> buttons. Both archive the old stuff. Both can be pointed to.
Mailing lists don't track bugs.
The _only_ reason why I originally started regression lists
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Bugzilla has an email interface.
> Andrew forwards bugs from Bugzilla to developers.
Yes. And if you search around, you'll even see that I occasionally use it.
But it's useful only once the bug has been assigned and somebody has
actually *looked* a
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Markus Rechberger wrote:
>
> I totally disagree here, bugzilla is a very good tool. If someone is
> too lazy to look at it it's his problem.
You must be doing things very differently from a lot of other people if
you think that's the case.
> Kernel Janitors can pick out s
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> That's exactly where Linus' "drop any bug reports that are more than a
> week old" suggestion is completely flawed - no matter what the submitter
> does, how often he tests latest kernels, noone will help him.
You talk, but what do you actually *sug
On Sunday, 29 April 2007 00:33, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:11:30AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Saturday April 28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >...
> > > As Andrew has pointed out before though - even though he forwards
> > > the bugs, nobody does anything with it. The sad tr
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 03:33:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > We are already quite good at ignoring bug reports that come through
> > linux-kernel, and it's an _advantage_ of the kernel Bugzilla to see more
> > than 1600 open bugs because
On 4/29/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> We are already quite good at ignoring bug reports that come through
> linux-kernel, and it's an _advantage_ of the kernel Bugzilla to see more
> than 1600 open bugs because this tells how bad we ar
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:27:01PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:53:20PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > We are already quite good at ignoring bug reports that come through
> > linux-kernel, and it's an _advantage_ of the kernel Bugzilla to see more
> > than 1600 open bugs
On Sunday April 29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 08:11:30AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote:
> >
> > I think there is value in weekly reminders, and I wouldn't mind seeing
> > a weekly Email on linux-kernel with something like a list of open bugs
> > that have not seen any activity i
101 - 200 of 539 matches
Mail list logo
