Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757543AbXKYWkc (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:40:32 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756648AbXKYWkY (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:40:24 -0500 Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:38066 "EHLO mailhub.stusta.mhn.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756040AbXKYWkX (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:40:23 -0500 Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 23:40:10 +0100 From: Adrian Bunk To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Natalie Protasevich Subject: Re: kernel bugzilla is FPOS (was: Re: "buggy cmd640" message followed by soft lockup) Message-ID: <20071125224010.GA5006@stusta.de> References: <200711222007.12497.elendil@planet.nl> <200711252228.07312.rjw@sisk.pl> <20071125213640.GC18284@stusta.de> <200711252339.00557.rjw@sisk.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200711252339.00557.rjw@sisk.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4235 Lines: 97 On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 11:38:59PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 25 of November 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 10:28:06PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Sunday, 25 of November 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > >.. > > > > First of all, Bugzilla is a quite often used bug tracker in the open > > > > source world [1], so many users already know it. > > > > > > > > But more important, "it pretends to require them to spend" isn't true > > > > because there's no pretending - we actually often require bug reporters > > > > to spend a lot of time on the bug report (e.g. when asking for > > > > bisecting). > > > > > > But not *initially*. > > > > > > We should not confuse *debugging* with *reporting bugs*. While the former is > > > actually more difficult and more time consuming than writing the code in which > > > the bug is present, the latter should be as simple as sending an email. > > > > For hardcore geeks like you and me sending an email might be easier than > > using some web interface. > > > > Normal humans tend to be more accustomed to web interfaces, and > > following the instructions on some web page is _much_ easier than > > reading three text files for knowing what to write in an email. > > Hm, this is a good argument for having such a web interface, but IMO it > shouldn't be mandatory. IOW, there should be a way to report a bug using plain > email, if the reporter prefers that. We can, however, request that the address > of our bug tracking system be added to the report's Cc list. Looking at both other open source projects and the support of commercial software a web interface should be enough. But this is not the problem - the problem is what happens after the initial report with the bug report. > Now, the question is what information this web interface should ask for. > > IMO, first, it should ask for what the bug is against, ie.: > - kernel version (to be obtained from 'git describe' or from /proc/version or > from .config, if the kernel doesn't boot) > - architecture (x86, ARM, MIPS etc.) > - subsystem and subsubsystem (that could be selectable from a menu and might > depend on the architecture) > > It also should ask if the problem is a regression and what was the last known > good kernel (I'd prefer that to be the last known major release selectable from > a list). > > Also, the reporter should be required to provide a summary (subject) and > a (concise) description of the problem and a list of email addresses to > send the report to in addition to the regular handling (there should be a way > to verify which addresses are acceptable). > > Anything else? > > Next, the report should be sent to a mailing list selected on the basis of the > information provided (not necessarily to individual developers, unless there > are some addresses provided explicitly by the reporter). The architecture choice seems to be the only thing from your list that isn't already available in the "Enter a new bug report" dialog of the kernel Bugzilla. > IMO, it should be possible to work on the bug using both email and the web > interface, whichever is preferred by the participant in question, without the > need to stick to any of them (ie. email messages sent in the corresponding > email thread should be registered by the bug tracking system and comments > entered into it should appear as messages in the email thread with the > appropriate To:, From: and Cc: information). > > There surely are more things that we'd like it to do, but the above seem to be > a reasonable minimum. Except from the From: header in outgoing emails the kernel Bugzilla already offers this for years. >... > Greetings, > Rafael cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - 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/