Re: kernel bugzilla is FPOS (was: Re: "buggy cmd640" message

Re: kernel bugzilla is FPOS (was: Re: "buggy cmd640" message

[Tomasz Chmielewski]

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

(...)

>> * After each major kernel release bugzilla should send a kind request for
>>   retesting to all open bugs.
> 
> Good idea, IMO.

Another alternative would be to send such a request if a given bug had 
no activity for, say, 6 months.

(...)

>> * Last but not least our bugzilla just looks ugly (it is _very_ important,
>>   I feel disgusted each time I have to work with it, OTOH I love using
>>   gitweb - you get the idea).
> 
> Well, that doesn't matter to me as long as it's useful.  Any ideas how to
> improve that? ;-)

Upgrade to Bugzilla 3.0.x. Its interface looks a bit better (and has a 
handful of useful features).

(...)

>> Hmm, what about switching to some proprietary bug tracking system just to
>> talk Linus into writing a superior one?  ;-)
> 
> I think that we just have to get an idea of what exactly is needed.  IOW, we
> need to know exactly how we're going to handle bugs as much as we needed
> to know exactly how we were going the handle the flow of changes.
> Perhaps it would be necessary to use a proprietary bug tracking system for some
> time for this purpose, but _maybe_ we can figure it out without anything like
> that.

How do others track bugs for software projects? RedHat, Novell, IBM, 
others - anyone reading this thread?


-- 
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org