Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:33:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Thomas Molina <tmolina@cox.net>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.5 Problem Status Report
In-Reply-To: <20020911022933.GA3530@holomorphy.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209111321450.10584-100000@dad.molina>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1593
Lines: 32

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:00:30PM -0500, Thomas Molina wrote:
> >               2.5 Kernel Problem Reports as of 10 Sep
> >    Problem Title                Status                Discussion
> >    qlogicisp oops               no further discussion 2.5.33
> >    PCI and/or starfire.c broken no further discussion 2.5.33
> >    __write_lock_failed() oops   no further discussion 2.5.33
> 
> Since 3 of these are things I reported...

[snip explanation of why these are "long-term problems"]

I've seen these problem status reports as a fairly dynamic item, 
especially at this stage of 2.5 development.  Is my current way of doing 
things useful to the list?  Certainly this posting seems to have generated 
a number of useful discussions.  I wish they had migrated to the threads 
where the original problem had been brought up.  

I've had several messages like this one, where people have asked what 
about problem x, y, or z that have disappeared from the radar scope.  I'm 
thinking I could keep the character of this report like it is now, and 
have another one with the "long-term problems".  I've been sending this 
report to the list about once a week, usually just after Linus brings out 
a new point release.  The other list could be a less-frequent "what about 
these?" kind of list.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/