Re: regression tracking (Re: Linux 2.6.21)
From: Adrian Bunk
Date: Thu Jun 14 2007 - 13:30:46 EST
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:39:23PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:33:40PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Why you didn't proposed (used) Debian's BTS as alternative to bugzilla,
> > [...]
> > BTS has been mentioned in that thread in a few posts; mostly positively
> > as I recall.
> I know, that most developers here are not working/familiar with what
> Debian has as its bug shooting weapon ``The system is mainly controlled
> by e-mail, but the bug reports can be viewed using the WWW.''.
> I thought somebody, who familiar with that, might propose to setup/tune
> it, but not doing yet another NIH thing, especially from e-mail
> integration POV. I doubt mozilla guys can think about it without
The problem isn't Bugzilla, and the Debian BTS wouldn't solve any
What is missing?
We need people who know one or more subsystems and who are willing to
regularly handle bug reports in their area.
And we need a release process that makes debugging, and if possible
fixing, all regressions prior to the release mandatory. You might never
come down to zero regressions and might not be able to handle all
last-minute reported regressions, but the 2.6.21 situation with 3 week
old known regressions not ever being debugged by a kernel developer
before the release has much room for improvements.
Changing the BTS would make sense if some core developers would state
that they would start using the BTS after this change. But otherwise it
doesn't matter which BTS to use.
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/