Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 06 Dec 2004 07:28:51 -0800 | | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | | Subject | Re: The bugzilla story |
| |
> As some of you may have noticed I've been doing a run on bugzilla for > the last few days to close old bugs and upgrade those who still are real > bugs. > > I have a few things that I would like to enforce on bugzilla to makes it > more maintanable which it clearly hasn't been for a while - there are > lots and lots of bugs open older than 2.6.0-final. > > I think the alternative trees section should be dropped. This is > especially a matter for -mm which has most reports of the alternative > trees in bugzilla. -mm changes way too rapidly to keep track of at > bugzilla ending up with open bugs that are fixed long ago. > > I also think this goes for any alternative tree, that problems should be > reported directly to the maintainer/LKML of the tree. Only if a problem > can be reproduced with the mainline kernel should the bug be reported at > bugzilla. > > New bugzilla reports against other trees than mainline should be > rejected and ask the submitter to report directly to the > maintainer/LKML. > > Andrew, what do you think about bug reports against -mm on bugzilla? > > Does anyone see a problem with this?
The subtrees section was created for exactly that reason - to isolate the bugs in alternate trees, and keep the out of everyone else's hair. Now if one was to argue that bugs in -mm should be cleaned up much more agressively, that'd make a lot of sense ... but that should be fairly easy to do as they're in a separate category you can search by.
The main issue is that there haven't been many people doing what you're doing now ... going through and housekeeping the bugs.
M.
- 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/
|  |