Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:02:13 +0100 | From | Tomasz Chmielewski <> | Subject | Re: kernel bugzilla is FPOS (was: Re: "buggy cmd640" message |
| |
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
(...)
>> * After each major kernel release bugzilla should send a kind request for >> retesting to all open bugs. > > Good idea, IMO.
Another alternative would be to send such a request if a given bug had no activity for, say, 6 months.
(...)
>> * Last but not least our bugzilla just looks ugly (it is _very_ important, >> I feel disgusted each time I have to work with it, OTOH I love using >> gitweb - you get the idea). > > Well, that doesn't matter to me as long as it's useful. Any ideas how to > improve that? ;-)
Upgrade to Bugzilla 3.0.x. Its interface looks a bit better (and has a handful of useful features).
(...)
>> Hmm, what about switching to some proprietary bug tracking system just to >> talk Linus into writing a superior one? ;-) > > I think that we just have to get an idea of what exactly is needed. IOW, we > need to know exactly how we're going to handle bugs as much as we needed > to know exactly how we were going the handle the flow of changes. > Perhaps it would be necessary to use a proprietary bug tracking system for some > time for this purpose, but _maybe_ we can figure it out without anything like > that.
How do others track bugs for software projects? RedHat, Novell, IBM, others - anyone reading this thread?
-- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org
- 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/
| |