linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.21

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <463466C3.3090604@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date:	Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:34:59 +0200
From:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To:	David Lang <david.lang@...italinsight.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mrechberger@...il.com,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, bunk@...sta.de, diegocg@...il.com,
	cebbert@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21

David Lang wrote:
> I'll say that as a user I hate having to deal with bugzilla.
> 
> there's nothing more frustrating then spending a good chunk of time
> trying to find a similar bug, then jumping through all the bugzilla
> hoops to file a report to eventually (days/weeks later) get a message
> 'closed becouse it's a duplicate report), then have to go and track down
> what it's a duplicate of, read through that bug report, only to find
> that it's not solved there either, and to top it off, the people working
> on that bug won't see my report or that I'm available to troubleshoot it.

Ideally, joining duplicate reports should be a low-cost, lossless operation.

That said, when bug B is marked as duplicate of bug A, people at bug A
at least get a link to bug B, aren't they?  If they are too lazy to read
the report B, they obviously are not very interested in A either.  Tough
luck.  Vice versa, people at bug B get notified that the matter is now
continued at bug A and can add their Cc there.  Of course that addition
is one of the very few things that could probably be automated.

Joining duplicate reports at a mailinglist involves responding to
multiple threads and send links into web archives of the list, which
happens to be redundant to and disparate from your local e-mail storage.
 I can't see how this aspect of bug-handling works easier on mailinglists.

> from a user poit of view, e-mailing the kernel list (retrying a few days
> later of there is no response) tends to work _much_ better.

What I from a maintainer's POV agree with is that a report to the
appropriate mailinglist is often easier to triage than a report at
bugzilla, because the reporter often needs initial help to properly
define the problem.  Bugzilla becomes useful after a report reached a
minimum level of quality (after minimum initial triage) and if the bug
can be clearly associated with a maintained subsystem of the kernel (as
e.g. Linus already pointed out in this thread).
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-- ===-=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/