Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux Kernel Bug-list Website | Date | Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:07:55 -0400 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
Mark Evans <mevans@ecsnet.com> said: > On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Horst von Brand wrote: > > There are bugfixes and random patches at <http://www.linuxhq.com> > > allready. The Debian crowd has a bug reporting system going for years > > now. Why do it again, and not just try to link together what is out there?
> I agree, I try to catalog most of the bugfixes and enhancements at > LinuxHQ. As for using the bug reporting system that Debian uses, here's > my thoughts on this:
Many thanks for your work on this, BTW.
> Debian, Apache, GNU, etc. are all very controlled development > environments. They lend themselves to using a centralized tracking > system. Linux on the other hand has a very open development model. Linus > utilimately produces the kernel release, but input is taken from many > sources. I doubt very seriously that most of the kernel developers are > ready to sign up for a controlled reporting system, it simply isn't how > Linux development is done (which is one of Linux's strengths in my > opinion).
Agreed (not that my opinion counts much around here ;-)
> In my opinion, what I've been doing at LinuxHQ is the right thing to do, > catalog the kernel patches, tracking when one has been included in a > kernel release or when one is obsolete. This doesn't not impose any > additional requirements on kernel developers or any kernel hacker.
Yes. But it would also be useful (but more work, I fear...) to set up a way of commenting on fixes: "Doesn't work here with foo controller bar", ...
> I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement, but I think trying > to create a centralized bug tracking system where programmers must adhere > to certain rules for reporting, testing and fixing bugs isn't the right > answer either.
What I have in mind (sort of ;-) is something as I say above. At least for the releases there should be some comment by somebody(ies) in the know: Like the WARNING for 2.1.44, and similar comments saying most filesystems _don't_ work for 2.1.4[56], ... Perhaps set up two comment tracks, one for "regular folks" and one for "maintainers/registered kernel hackers"? Much of the problems I'd find as a newbie is to find out if the guy/gal posting (about) a patch is guaranteed clueful or possibly clueless... -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
| |