Yes, good work, thanks a lot for it! The new interface is much better and more
useful.
Greetings,
Rafael
PS
BTW, would that be possible to create the "Hibernation/Suspend" subcategory
of "Power Management" that I asked for some time ago, please? :-)
Oops. Sorry. Done.
M.
-
To
On Tuesday, 19 June 2007 02:28, Martin Bligh wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >> I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> >> ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
> >
> > I'm hoping it's not "ended".
> >
> > IOW, I really don't
On Tuesday, 19 June 2007 02:28, Martin Bligh wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
I'm hoping it's not ended.
IOW, I really don't think we _resolved_
Yes, good work, thanks a lot for it! The new interface is much better and more
useful.
Greetings,
Rafael
PS
BTW, would that be possible to create the Hibernation/Suspend subcategory
of Power Management that I asked for some time ago, please? :-)
Oops. Sorry. Done.
M.
-
To unsubscribe
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
I'm hoping it's not "ended".
IOW, I really don't think we _resolved_ anything, although the work that
Adrian started is continuing
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
I'm hoping it's not ended.
IOW, I really don't think we _resolved_ anything, although the work that
Adrian started is continuing
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 10:44:39AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
> >That's wrong if developers are tending to reply only one thing --
> >git-bisect.
> >
> >If things are going to be that bad, then better to start dealing with the
> >cause, not
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:22:26PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+If the patch introduces a new regression and this
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:24:30PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:13:39PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Sunday, 17 June 2007 13:47, Oleg Verych wrote:
> []
> > > It's OK _only_ in case of unknown, hard to find *hardware* bugs.
> > >
> > > If you think it's "a good
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:13:39PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Sunday, 17 June 2007 13:47, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
> > It's OK _only_ in case of unknown, hard to find *hardware* bugs.
> >
> > If you think it's "a good thing" for bad, untested by developer
> > code, then something is
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> "choose minor evil to prevent a greater one"
The measurement of "evil" is subjective. That's why there are releases
with known regressions.
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== -==- =---=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On 17/06/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:41:36AM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Adrian Bunk pisze:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>> ...
>>> [Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:41:36AM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Adrian Bunk pisze:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>>> ...
>>> [Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm saying "too
>>> few FireWire driver users run -rc
On Sunday, 17 June 2007 13:47, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:22:26PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> > On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> +If the patch
On Sunday, 17 June 2007 12:22, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not
> > > fixed
> >
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:22:26PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> +If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not
> >fixed
On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not fixed
> +in seven days, then the patch will be reverted.
Those regressions where we know
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not fixed
> +in seven days, then the patch will be reverted.
Those regressions where we know which patch caused them are the easy ones.
Often we
Hi all,
Adrian Bunk pisze:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
[Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm saying "too
few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels".]
Getting more people testing -rc kernels might be possible, and I don't
think
Hi all,
Adrian Bunk pisze:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
[Adrian, I'm not saying too few users run -rc kernels, I'm saying too
few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels.]
Getting more people testing -rc kernels might be possible, and I don't
think it
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not fixed
+in seven days, then the patch will be reverted.
Those regressions where we know which patch caused them are the easy ones.
Often we don't
On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not fixed
+in seven days, then the patch will be reverted.
Those regressions where we know which
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:22:26PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not
fixed
+in seven
On Sunday, 17 June 2007 12:22, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
+If the patch introduces a new regression and this regression was not
fixed
+in seven days,
On Sunday, 17 June 2007 13:47, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:22:26PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+If the patch introduces a new
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:41:36AM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi all,
Adrian Bunk pisze:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
[Adrian, I'm not saying too few users run -rc kernels, I'm saying too
few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels.]
Getting more
On 17/06/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:41:36AM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
Hi all,
Adrian Bunk pisze:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
[Adrian, I'm not saying too few users run -rc kernels, I'm saying too
few
Michal Piotrowski wrote:
choose minor evil to prevent a greater one
The measurement of evil is subjective. That's why there are releases
with known regressions.
--
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== -==- =---=
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:13:39PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 17 June 2007 13:47, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
It's OK _only_ in case of unknown, hard to find *hardware* bugs.
If you think it's a good thing for bad, untested by developer
code, then something is completely wrong.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 04:24:30PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:13:39PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Sunday, 17 June 2007 13:47, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
It's OK _only_ in case of unknown, hard to find *hardware* bugs.
If you think it's a good thing for
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:22:26PM +0200, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
On 17/06/07, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 11:41:36 +0200 Michal Piotrowski
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+If the patch introduces a new regression and this
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 10:44:39AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
That's wrong if developers are tending to reply only one thing --
git-bisect.
If things are going to be that bad, then better to start dealing with the
cause, not consequences. In
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>...
> [Adrian, I'm not saying "too few users run -rc kernels", I'm saying "too
> few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels".]
Getting more people testing -rc kernels might be possible, and I don't
think it would be too hard. And
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:03:44AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>...
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:55:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > > For example you feel, that
Hi Stefan,
On 16/06/07, Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[..]
Well, if _other_ subsystems would get regressions in Linus' tree fixed
quicker, there might perhaps be more people who would consider to run
-rc kernels and would catch and report "my" regressions.
[..]
[Adrian, I'm not
Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[...]
>> This means going through every single point in the regression list
>> asking "Have we tried everything possible to solve this regression?".
[...]
>> And a low hanging fruit to improve the release would be
Oleg Verych wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
[...]
This means going through every single point in the regression list
asking Have we tried everything possible to solve this regression?.
[...]
And a low hanging fruit to improve the release would be if you
Hi Stefan,
On 16/06/07, Stefan Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[..]
Well, if _other_ subsystems would get regressions in Linus' tree fixed
quicker, there might perhaps be more people who would consider to run
-rc kernels and would catch and report my regressions.
[..]
[Adrian, I'm not
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 07:03:44AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
...
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:55:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
For example you feel, that you've
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 02:23:25PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
...
[Adrian, I'm not saying too few users run -rc kernels, I'm saying too
few FireWire driver users run -rc kernels.]
Getting more people testing -rc kernels might be possible, and I don't
think it would be too hard. And not only
[I've added Herbert as former kernel team member in the debian(AFAIK),
sorry, if i'm wrong and you have no opinion on that, Herbert.]
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:55:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm seeing this long (198)
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> > > ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
>
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >
> > I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> > ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
>
> I'm hoping it's not "ended".
>
> IOW, I really don't think we
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
I'm hoping it's not "ended".
IOW, I really don't think we _resolved_ anything, although the work that
Adrian started is continuing through the wiki
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
I'm hoping it's not ended.
IOW, I really don't think we _resolved_ anything, although the work that
Adrian started is continuing through the wiki and
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
I'm hoping it's not ended.
IOW, I really don't think we _resolved_ anything,
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
I'm hoping
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 04:20:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have
[I've added Herbert as former kernel team member in the debian(AFAIK),
sorry, if i'm wrong and you have no opinion on that, Herbert.]
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:55:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 03:32:36AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 01:42:02AM
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:33:38PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>...
> Also, after i saw Linus' message about doing mostly tools last couple of
> years, i wonder why you, Adrian, didn't think about your tools first,
> before you've started regression tracking? You are not running in front
> of a
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:30:49PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:39:23PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
> > I know, that most developers here are not working/familiar with what
> > Debian has as its bug shooting weapon ``The system is mainly controlled
> > by e-mail, but
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:39:23PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:33:40PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> []
> > [...]
> > > Why you didn't proposed (used) Debian's BTS as alternative to bugzilla,
> > [...]
> >
> > BTS has been mentioned in that thread in a few posts;
Oleg Verych wrote:
> I thought somebody, who familiar with that, might propose to setup/tune
> it, but not doing yet another NIH thing,
I may have missed something, but I recall that Adrian's bugtracking,
while it lasted, and now Michal's continuing it mostly came into being
because Adrian just
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:33:40PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
[]
> [...]
> > Why you didn't proposed (used) Debian's BTS as alternative to bugzilla,
> [...]
>
> BTS has been mentioned in that thread in a few posts; mostly positively
> as I recall.
I know, that most developers here are not
Oleg Verych wrote:
> I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
> ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
Direct or indirect results:
- See Michal Piotrowski's periodic posts and
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions .
- Meanwhile, the people who maintain
* Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
* Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
* From: Linus Torvalds
>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>
>> Besides the primary point of bug tracking is not to be friendly
>> to someone, but to (a) fix the bugs and (b) know how many bugs
>> there for a
* Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
* Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
* From: Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
Besides the primary point of bug tracking is not to be friendly
to someone, but to (a) fix the bugs and (b) know how many bugs
there for a given
Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm seeing this long (198) thread and just have no idea how it has
ended (wiki? hand-mailing?).
Direct or indirect results:
- See Michal Piotrowski's periodic posts and
http://kernelnewbies.org/known_regressions .
- Meanwhile, the people who maintain
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:33:40PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
[]
[...]
Why you didn't proposed (used) Debian's BTS as alternative to bugzilla,
[...]
BTS has been mentioned in that thread in a few posts; mostly positively
as I recall.
I know, that most developers here are not
Oleg Verych wrote:
I thought somebody, who familiar with that, might propose to setup/tune
it, but not doing yet another NIH thing,
I may have missed something, but I recall that Adrian's bugtracking,
while it lasted, and now Michal's continuing it mostly came into being
because Adrian just
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:39:23PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 05:33:40PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
[]
[...]
Why you didn't proposed (used) Debian's BTS as alternative to bugzilla,
[...]
BTS has been mentioned in that thread in a few posts; mostly positively
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:30:49PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:39:23PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
I know, that most developers here are not working/familiar with what
Debian has as its bug shooting weapon ``The system is mainly controlled
by e-mail, but the bug
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 10:33:38PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
...
Also, after i saw Linus' message about doing mostly tools last couple of
years, i wonder why you, Adrian, didn't think about your tools first,
before you've started regression tracking? You are not running in front
of a train,
64 matches
Mail list logo
