[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Management System
   Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 15:28:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: <>

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
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.138 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site