From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755136AbXD2JgH (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:36:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756314AbXD2JgH (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:36:07 -0400 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:60211 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755121AbXD2JgF (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Apr 2007 05:36:05 -0400 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <463466C3.3090604@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:34:59 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070408 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Lang CC: David Miller , mrechberger@gmail.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, bunk@stusta.de, diegocg@gmail.com, cebbert@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.21 References: <20070428195320.GZ3468@stusta.de> <20070428.204048.125894473.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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/