Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:27:09 -0700
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
cc: greearb@candelatech.com, davidel@xmailserver.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org,
       netdev@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: networking bugs and bugme.osdl.org
Message-ID: <34700000.1056760028@[10.10.2.4]>
In-Reply-To: <20030628001954.GD18676@work.bitmover.com>
References: <3EFCC1EB.2070904@candelatech.com> <20030627.151906.102571486.davem@redhat.com> <3EFCC6EE.3020106@candelatech.com> <20030627.170022.74744550.davem@redhat.com> <20030628001954.GD18676@work.bitmover.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2071
Lines: 45

--Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote (on Friday, June 27, 2003 17:19:54 -0700):

> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 05:00:22PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>>    From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
>>    Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:36:30 -0700
>>    
>>    So, you'd be happy so long as bugz sent mail to the netdev mailing
>>    lists instead of to you?
>> 
>> The best power I have to scale is the delete key in my email
>> reader, when I delete an email it's gone and that's it.
>> 
>> bugme bugs don't have this attribute, they are like emails that
>> persist forever until someone does something about them, and this is
>> the big problem I have with it.
> 
> I've proposed this before and nobody listened but maybe this time...
> 
> I think what you want is a bug database which distinguishes between
> filed bugs and reviewed bugs.  You want to capture all bug reports, 
> as Alan says (he's right, there is no question about it, you need to
> capture the data).  You also want an *automatic* way for bugs to just
> rot.  Anyone can file a bug but unless someone with expertise in the 
> area reviews the bug and agrees to do something about it, the bug rots.
> 
> It's level 1 (capture) and level 2 (we really need to do something about
> this some day).  Level 1 will have zillions of duplicates and tons of 
> other noise.  Level 2 should be a small list, no duplicates, carefully
> managed.

That's a trivial change to make if you want it. we just add a "reviewed"
/ "certified" state between "new" and "assigned". Yes, might be a good 
idea.  I'm not actually that convinced that "assigned" is overly useful
in the context of open-source, but that's a separate discussion.

I'm hoping to get a discussion going at Kernel Summit / OLS on how 
people want this to evolve, I'll add this one to the list ... thanks.

M.

-
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/