linux-kernel - Re: kernel bugzilla is FPOS (was: Re: "buggy cmd640" message followed by soft lockup)

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200711262357.04817.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:57:04 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>
Subject: Re: kernel bugzilla is FPOS (was: Re: "buggy cmd640" message followed by soft lockup)

On Monday, 26 of November 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 01:30:06AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 of November 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >...
> > > That's not possible, but as already said it's not required.
> > > And more important, it's unrelated to any problems we have.
> > > 
> > > And it sounds funny that you first write specifications mandating stuff 
> > > like "IMO, first, it should ask for what the bug is against" and then 
> > > demand an additional email interface that bypasses everything you 
> > > demanded previously.
> > 
> > I just realize that there are people who wouldn't like to use the web interface
> > and would prefer to use email instead.
> 
> In the cases where these are kernel developers that do (or should) 
> handle dozens of bugs each week I see a point if they have problems 
> integrating some medium into their workflow.
> 
> But in all software, no matter whether open source or commercial, bug 
> reporters simply have to use whatever the vendor offers as support 
> channel.

Yes.

That's why we should tell them what the channel is. :-)

> > Moreover, you won't force people to use the web interface only for reporting
> > bugs, because frankly for some kinds of problems it's too heavywieght
> 
> That developers who know what they are doing might bypass the bug
> tracking is not a problem.
> 
> > (compilation problems and purely software, reproducible things like that are
> > much faster resolved using email; this also applies to easily reproducible bugs
> > in general).  Still, it wouldn't hurt if they were automatically tracked.
> 
> This sounds like "a bit pregnant"...
> 
> Tracking requires things like e.g. categorizing the issue and marking it 
> as fixed when it got fixed.

Yes, but that may be done after the fact.  It's not a big problem to review an
email thread starting from a bug report and see if it lead to a fix (I do that
on a regular basis).  [Note: They tend to be relatively short. ]  You can even
check if the fix has been merged.

Still, you need to know which threads to review.

Greetings,
Rafael
-
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/