Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:01:01 -0700 | From | <> | Subject | Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Management System |
| |
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:28:48 -0700 (PDT) From: <lamont@icopyright.com>
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Daniel Quinlan wrote: > "Fixes" - followed by one or more bug numbers (tracked by tytso > for now). For example, "T0001" might be tytso bug > number 0001.
bugzilla. or something else automated to track bugs and assign numbers.
It's an open question whether it's less work for me to read through all of linux-kernel, looking for bug reports, and filing them myself, OR run something like bugzilla, and then have to winnow out all of the bogus/bullshit patches which people submit --- and then have to scan l-k anyway, since a lot of people won't bother to use the formal web submission tool.
If everyone used it, and it was integrated into a full software development process that included a software control system, sure; that's what bugzilla was designed around, and it's not bad at doing what it was designed to do. But given the somewhat chaotic development process used by the kernel, simply throwing in bugzilla without putting in the rest of the changes necessary to really make it work well is probably a bad idea. And I don't think we have the mandate from the developers and from Linus to make that kind of major change to how the Linux kernel is developed.
- Ted
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |