Yes, good work, thanks a lot for it! The new interface is much better and more
useful.
Greetings,
Rafael
PS
BTW, would that be possible to create the "Hibernation/Suspend" subcategory
of "Power Management" that I asked for some time ago, please? :-)
Oops. Sorry. Done.
M.
-
To unsubscr
On Tuesday, 19 June 2007 02:28, Martin Bligh wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >> I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> >> ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
> >
> > I'm hoping it's not "ended".
> >
> > IOW, I really don't t
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
I'm hoping it's not "ended".
IOW, I really don't think we _resolved_ anything, although the work that
Adrian started is continuing th
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 10:44:39AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
> >That's wrong if developers are tending to reply only one thing --
> >git-bisect.
> >
> >If things are going to be that bad, then better to start dealing with the
> >cause, not conseque
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:22:26PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+If the patch introduces a new regression and this
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:24:30PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:13:39PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, 17 June 2007 13:47, Oleg Verych wrote:
> []
> > > It's OK _only_ in case of unknown, hard to find *hardware* bugs.
> > >
> > > If you think it's "a good
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:13:39PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 June 2007 13:47, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
> > It's OK _only_ in case of unknown, hard to find *hardware* bugs.
> >
> > If you think it's "a good thing" for bad, untested by developer
> > code, then something is complet
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> "choose minor evil to prevent a greater one"
The measurement of "evil" is subjective. That's why there are releases
with known regressions.
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== -==- =---=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linu
On 17/06/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:41:36AM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Adrian Bunk pisze:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>> ...
>>> [Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm sayin
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:41:36AM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Adrian Bunk pisze:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>> ...
>>> [Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm saying "too
>>> few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels".
On Sunday, 17 June 2007 13:47, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:22:26PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +If the patch intr
On Sunday, 17 June 2007 12:22, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not
> > > fixed
> > >
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:22:26PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> +If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not
> >fixed
On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not fixed
> +in seven days, then the patch will be reverted.
Those regressions where we know
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not fixed
> +in seven days, then the patch will be reverted.
Those regressions where we know which patch caused them are the easy ones.
Often we don'
Hi all,
Adrian Bunk pisze:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
[Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm saying "too
few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels".]
Getting more people testing -rc kernels might be possible, and I don't
think it
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>...
> [Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm saying "too
> few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels".]
Getting more people testing -rc kernels might be possible, and I don't
think it would be too hard. And not
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:03:44AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>...
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:55:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > > For example you feel, that
Hi Stefan,
On 16/06/07, Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
Well, if _other_ subsystems would get regressions in Linus' tree fixed
quicker, there might perhaps be more people who would consider to run
-rc kernels and would catch and report "my" regressions.
[..]
[Adrian, I'm not sa
Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[...]
>> This means going through every single point in the regression list
>> asking "Have we tried everything possible to solve this regression?".
[...]
>> And a low hanging fruit to improve the release would be i
[I've added Herbert as former kernel team member in the debian(AFAIK),
sorry, if i'm wrong and you have no opinion on that, Herbert.]
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:55:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm seeing this long (198) thr
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> > > ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
> >
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >
> > I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> > ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
>
> I'm hoping it's not "ended".
>
> IOW, I really don't think we _resolved_
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
I'm hoping it's not "ended".
IOW, I really don't think we _resolved_ anything, although the work that
Adrian started is continuing through the wiki and
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:33:38PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>...
> Also, after i saw Linus' message about doing mostly tools last couple of
> years, i wonder why you, Adrian, didn't think about your tools first,
> before you've started regression tracking? You are not running in front
> of a train
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:30:49PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:39:23PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
> > I know, that most developers here are not working/familiar with what
> > Debian has as its bug shooting weapon ``The system is mainly controlled
> > by e-mail, but the
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:39:23PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:33:40PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> []
> > [...]
> > > Why you didn't proposed (used) Debian's BTS as alternative to bugzilla,
> > [...]
> >
> > BTS has been mentioned in that thread in a few posts; mostly
Oleg Verych wrote:
> I thought somebody, who familiar with that, might propose to setup/tune
> it, but not doing yet another NIH thing,
I may have missed something, but I recall that Adrian's bugtracking,
while it lasted, and now Michal's continuing it mostly came into being
because Adrian just st
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:33:40PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
[]
> [...]
> > Why you didn't proposed (used) Debian's BTS as alternative to bugzilla,
> [...]
>
> BTS has been mentioned in that thread in a few posts; mostly positively
> as I recall.
I know, that most developers here are not worki
Oleg Verych wrote:
> I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
Direct or indirect results:
- See Michal Piotrowski's periodic posts and
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions .
- Meanwhile, the people who maintain bugzilla.kerne
* Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
* Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
* From: Linus Torvalds
>
> 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 g
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:36:24AM +0200, Joerg Sommrey wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:38:34PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 18:39 +0200, Joerg Sommrey wrote:
> > > Here it is. Maybe this problem is related to the usage of the
> > > "experimental" amd76x_pm module?
>
[David Woodhouse - Sun, May 13, 2007 at 02:50:10PM +0800]
| On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 10:43 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > Btw David who does release a such snapshots (like git16)? You or
| > Linus?
|
| I do. Not that I've actually had much involvement with it for a while --
| it's mostly done by
On Sun, 2007-05-13 at 10:43 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Btw David who does release a such snapshots (like git16)? You or
> Linus?
I do. Not that I've actually had much involvement with it for a while --
it's mostly done by cron and the script at
http://david.woodhou.se/git-snapshot.sh
--
dw
[David Woodhouse - Sun, May 13, 2007 at 02:26:40PM +0800]
| On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:01 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
| > On May 12 2007 21:44, David Woodhouse wrote:
| > >On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:19 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > >> Actually I think it would be convenient if such tags (like
| >
On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:01 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On May 12 2007 21:44, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:19 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> >> Actually I think it would be convenient if such tags (like
> >> v.2.6.21-git16) were in Linus' git tree too.
> >
> >Then there wo
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:19 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> Actually I think it would be convenient if such tags (like
>> v.2.6.21-git16) were in Linus' git tree too.
>
> Then there would be _lots_ of tags in the master tree -- I'm not sure we
> want that.
>
> I suppose
[Russell King - Sat, May 12, 2007 at 05:31:41PM +0100]
| On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 08:24:28PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > [Jan Engelhardt - Sat, May 12, 2007 at 05:01:19PM +0200]
| > |
| > | On May 12 2007 21:44, David Woodhouse wrote:
| > | >On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:19 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 08:24:28PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> [Jan Engelhardt - Sat, May 12, 2007 at 05:01:19PM +0200]
> |
> | On May 12 2007 21:44, David Woodhouse wrote:
> | >On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:19 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> | >> Actually I think it would be convenient if such tag
[Jan Engelhardt - Sat, May 12, 2007 at 05:01:19PM +0200]
|
| On May 12 2007 21:44, David Woodhouse wrote:
| >On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:19 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >> Actually I think it would be convenient if such tags (like
| >> v.2.6.21-git16) were in Linus' git tree too.
| >
| >Then there
[Jan Engelhardt - Sat, May 12, 2007 at 05:01:19PM +0200]
|
| On May 12 2007 21:44, David Woodhouse wrote:
| >On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:19 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >> Actually I think it would be convenient if such tags (like
| >> v.2.6.21-git16) were in Linus' git tree too.
| >
| >Then there
On May 12 2007 21:44, David Woodhouse wrote:
>On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:19 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>> Actually I think it would be convenient if such tags (like
>> v.2.6.21-git16) were in Linus' git tree too.
>
>Then there would be _lots_ of tags in the master tree -- I'm not sure we
>want th
[David Woodhouse - Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:44:56PM +0800]
| On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:19 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| > Actually I think it would be convenient if such tags (like
| > v.2.6.21-git16) were in Linus' git tree too.
|
| Then there would be _lots_ of tags in the master tree -- I'm not
On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 17:19 +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> Actually I think it would be convenient if such tags (like
> v.2.6.21-git16) were in Linus' git tree too.
Then there would be _lots_ of tags in the master tree -- I'm not sure we
want that.
I suppose I could put a tree on kernel.org whic
[YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@ - Sat, May 12, 2007 at 09:03:08PM +0900]
| In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 12 May 2007 13:19:23 +0200 (MEST)),
Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
|
| > I notice that people refer to certain git snapshots as e.g. -git16;
| > kernel.org does so too. H
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Sat, 12 May 2007 13:19:23 +0200 (MEST)), Jan
Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> I notice that people refer to certain git snapshots as e.g. -git16;
> kernel.org does so too. Hovering over the link on kernel.org reveals
> http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 01:19:23PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> Hi list,
>
>
> I notice that people refer to certain git snapshots as e.g. -git16;
> kernel.org does so too. Hovering over the link on kernel.org reveals
> http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/patch-2.6.21-git16.bz2
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 09:40:07PM +0200, Diego Calleja wrote:
> 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 + a
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:38:34PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 18:39 +0200, Joerg Sommrey wrote:
> > Here it is. Maybe this problem is related to the usage of the
> > "experimental" amd76x_pm module?
>
> Can you please verify what happens w/o that module ?
>
After reboo
On Monday, 30 April 2007 08:30, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:09:06 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > 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, yo
On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 18:39 +0200, Joerg Sommrey wrote:
> Here it is. Maybe this problem is related to the usage of the
> "experimental" amd76x_pm module?
Can you please verify what happens w/o that module ?
Thanks,
tglx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linu
On Mon, April 30, 2007 8:57 pm, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I never expected the reality to be come as white as my ideal or the
> washed things in washing powder ads.
This reminds me very much of what the brilliant computing scientist Edsger
W. Dijkstra more than once wrote:
`Confusing "love of perfecti
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:20:46AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > My ideal was always that reported bugs should be fixed.
>
> ..and this is where we differ.
>
> OF COURSE bugs should be fixed. But you seem to think that there is
> something
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ponder that, grasshopper. And until you can see that things are not
> "either-or", "black-and-white", "all or nothing", I don't think I really
> can have anything worthwhile to add in this discussion to you. People who
> think in absolutes are simp
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 09:53:20PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 02:13:08PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >...
> > (I've said this before, but I'll say it again: one thing that would
> > already make bugzilla better is to just always drop any bug reports that
> > are more t
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> My ideal was always that reported bugs should be fixed.
..and this is where we differ.
OF COURSE bugs should be fixed. But you seem to think that there is
something magical and special about every single bug-report.
You have a new home assignment:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 12:01:38AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>...
> If bugs should be reported to the mailing list, then they
> should just get rid of bugzilla because it's aparently
> serving as a garbage bin.
The first question is not "Bugzilla" but "Does bug tracking make sense?".
Many bug re
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007 at 02:24:03PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> 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 b
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, 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 problem in our current bugzilla is that a lot of people
cannot reassign bugs they don't own. I somet
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 06:23:36PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 14:52 +0200, Joerg Sommrey wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > after switching to 2.6.21 the system clock sporadically loses time on my
> > box (i386, Athlon MP).
> > It's always around 4.68 seconds and happened 7 time
On Mon, 2007-04-30 at 14:52 +0200, Joerg Sommrey wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after switching to 2.6.21 the system clock sporadically loses time on my
> box (i386, Athlon MP).
> It's always around 4.68 seconds and happened 7 times in the last 12
> hours. A simple calculation (2 ^ ACPI_PM_MASK / PMTMR_TIC
On Monday 30 April 2007, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
>For I somehow feel that most people here dislike bugzilla because of
>misconceptions - which only arose as bugzilla.kernel.org is *really*
>misconfigured.
Bugzilla was indeed miss-conceived. It shoulda been on birth control pills.
I'm not claim
Johannes Stezenbach wrote :
> 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 harpi
On Sun, Apr 29, 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> 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
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Indan Zupancic wrote:
> I don't know, but what about telling the hapless person who went
> through the process of posting a bug what's wrong with the bug report?
It's a tedious process you keep doing over and over and over and over again,
and my experience shows it's sheer lu
On 29 Apr 2007, at 22:24, Linus Torvalds wrote:
Exactly because I don't think anybody has shown any better
automation than
bugzilla. But that doesn't make bugzilla "the One Choice". That's
not how
it works. If there is no automation, manual tracking is still
better than
*crap* automation.
(various cc's reestablished. Please don't remove cc's when dealing with
kernel people).
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:57:08 +0200 Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > If it is considered useful it shouldn't be a problem to automatically
> > forwar
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What works is somebody who is a bugmaster, and it doesn't really matter
> *what* bug tracker he points to (bugzilla being one of the possibilities,
> although not necessarily the best, and absolutely NOT the only choice),
> and turn them into emails.
From: Tomasz Chmielewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 08:09:13 +0200
> Why didn't you do it then? Why didn't you send your patch to the main
> developer?
> Wouldn't be your problem fixed if you did it?
Because all the directions say to report bugs to the bugzilla via
bugs.freedeskt
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:09:06 +0200 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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
> > >
Adrian Bunk schrieb:
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 160
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
1 - 100 of 445 matches
Mail list logo
