linux-kernel - Re: Who wants to maintain KR list for stable releases? (was Re: nmi

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <46D303A3.1030708@googlemail.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:02:27 +0200
From:	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
CC:	Michal Piotrowski <michal.k.k.piotrowski@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@....de>,
	eranian@....hp.com, ak@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Who wants to maintain KR list for stable releases? (was Re:	nmi_watchdog=2
 regression in 2.6.21)

Daniel Walker pisze:
> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 17:26 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>> On 27/08/07, Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-08-27 at 13:38 +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
>>>> On 27/08/07, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> [..]
>>>>> I'm not sure that we need one, really.  Any bugs in a stable release can be
>>>>> handled via email and/or bugzilla as we are presently doing?
>>>>>
>>>>> What I'm concerned about is that regressions which we didn't fix are just
>>>>> getting lost.  Is anyone taking care to ensure that they are getting
>>>>> transitioned into bugzilla for tracking?
>>>> I can copy all regression reports into Bugzilla after each release.
>>> Should we get the regression field fix before? Or had you planned on
>>> just bypassing that completely ?
>> IMO solution proposed by David http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/27/21 seems
>> to be most reasonable.
> 
> Now that I'm looking at the kernel bugzilla .. If you set the kernel
> version to 2.6.22 and set the "Regression" check box you could denote
> the fact that it's a regression in that kernel version ..
> 
> I don't know if this URL is going to come out right,
> 
> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&tree=Mainline&long_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&kernel_version_type=allwordssubstr&kernel_version=2.6.22&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=ASSIGNED&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailassigned_to2=1&emailreporter2=1&emailcc2=1&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&regression=include&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
> 
> That should be open bugs , kernel version 2.6.22, with the regression
> check box set ..
> 
> So you may not need a master tracking bug ..

Indeed, now we need a predefined search "show regressions in 2.6.x" :)

So the plan is simple:
- copy all regressions into bugzilla after each release
- make sure that all regressions reported on lkml after realase hit bugzilla
- make sure that all regressions in bugzilla are marked as regression

> 
> Daniel

Regards,
Michal

-- 
LOG
http://www.stardust.webpages.pl/log/
-
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/