Re: How to reduce the number of open kernel bugs

["Parag Warudkar" <parag.warudkar@gmail.com>]

Adrian Bunk <bunk <at> kernel.org> writes:

> Maintainer:
>
> Yeah, in any case. I cannot fix it, since it's not a bug in the fobar
> code. Please reopen a new bug and CC the architecture or PCI maintainer
> or whatever person related to the bus, chipset or CPU, if you think the
> foobar device still works. If the foobar hardware got corrupted, you
> already know what to do...
>
> I am well aware that loud flames are often the only working way of
> communication in Linux kernel development, but we mustn't communicate
> this way with bug submitters.
>

Actually this way of _communication_ is better because the maintainer has -

a) at least seen the bug
b) made it clear upfront that he/she is not in a position to fix it and
c) not inflicted a huge amount of follow up work for the reporter
while giving no hope that it will be fixed.

There is not much you can do if the maintainer feels he/she can't do
anything - apart from fixing it yourself which has its limits.
So the best that can be done is to communicate it clearly - that
happens in this case.

Compare the above to -

* Reporter reports a bug.

* People in position to fix it  have no care for it and they show it
(By not even looking at it).

* Significant amount of time passes with no activity.

* Reporter receives a automated mail (bonus insult) - New release is
available, please retest with new release and open a new bug if the
problem still exists.

* Bug is closed

* Bug still exists in next release - reporter knows only when he/she
gets a chance to upgrade to next release (not always easy/possible).

Parag