linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24

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: <20080331133429.GG14636@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:34:29 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Pawel Staszewski <pstaszewski@...com.pl>,
	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24

* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:

> > This is why I have always been advocating so aggressive culling of 
> > regressions and bug-reports - stale bug-reports are worse than 
> > useless, they actually _hurt_.
> 
> I don't quite agree here.  At least, they indicate that we may have an 
> unfixed problem and the fact that no one has taken care of it doesn't 
> really mean we should generally ignore it.

culling doesnt mean ignoring - it just means de-prioritizing. There's 
four basic bug categories:

1- bugs where there's inactivity on the reporter side. This we should
   de-prioritize - and reactivate them once their activity changes.

2- bugs where there's inactivity on the _maintainer_ side show bad bugs 
   in our process.

3- bugs that are old but have lots of activity are usually the most 
   difficult bugs where both side try their best to get it resolved.

4- bugs that are relatively new can be in any of the above 3 categories, 
   we dont know yet.

so i think we should list bugs in category #3 first: the hardest bugs, 
which need the most eyes. Then should we list #2 - the embarrasing bugs 
where our pocess failed. Then should we list #4 - new, not yet resolved 
bugs which need more eyes - especially in late -rc's. Then comes #1 - 
inactive bugs.

the problem for your scripting is to efficiently parse lkml activity for 
these bugs: which replies are from the "maintainer", and how "active" is 
a thread. So i guess a good heuristic is what you did in your latest 
mail: to reverse sort by age of the bug - but i'd also suggest to list 
too old entries where the bugzilla is not in NEEDINFO state - those 
indicate inactive (or unaware) maintainers.

	Ingo
--
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/