![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:48:16AM -0600, Eli Carter wrote: > >Also, we could have a non-web interface, (telnet or gopher to the bug > >DB, or control it by E-Mail). > Can you interface with bugzilla's database backend maybe? It seems like > refactoring bugzilla might be better? It's an annoyance to me that the current bugzilla we use can only do 1 way email. Ie, I receive email when things change, but I can't reply to that mail and have my comments auto-added. Other bugzillas can do this, so I think either some switch needs to be enabled, or theres some extension not present. (I'm a complete bugzilla weenie, and no nothing about how its set up). > >It could warn the user if they attach an un-decoded oops that their > >bug report isn't as useful as it could be, and if they mention a > >distribution kernel version, that it's not a tree that the developers > >will necessarily be familiar with > Perhaps a more generalized hook into bugzilla for 'validating' a bug > report, then code specific validators for kernel work? Its a nice idea, but I think it's a lot of effort to get it right, when a human can look at the dump, realise its not decoded, and send a request back in hardly any time at all. I also don't trust things like this where if something goes wrong, we could lose the bug report. People are also more likely to ping-pong ,argue or "how do I..." with a human than they are with an automated robot. Dave -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:0.925 / U:1.110 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||