On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:59:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >...
> > > This is why I've been advocating bugzilla "forget" stuff, for example. I
> > > tend to see bugzilla as
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >...
> > This is why I've been advocating bugzilla "forget" stuff, for example. I
> > tend to see bugzilla as a place where noise accumulates, rather than a
> > place where noise is made
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>...
> This is why I've been advocating bugzilla "forget" stuff, for example. I
> tend to see bugzilla as a place where noise accumulates, rather than a
> place where noise is made into a signal.
>
> Which gets my to the real
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:01:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> > The -mm kernel already implements what your proposed PTS would do.
> >
> > Plus it gives testers more or less all patches currently pending
> > inclusion into Linus' tree in one
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:01:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
...
The -mm kernel already implements what your proposed PTS would do.
Plus it gives testers more or less all patches currently pending
inclusion into Linus' tree in one kernel they
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
This is why I've been advocating bugzilla forget stuff, for example. I
tend to see bugzilla as a place where noise accumulates, rather than a
place where noise is made into a signal.
Which gets my to the real issue I
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
This is why I've been advocating bugzilla forget stuff, for example. I
tend to see bugzilla as a place where noise accumulates, rather than a
place where noise is made into a
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:59:39PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:04:58AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
This is why I've been advocating bugzilla forget stuff, for example. I
tend to see bugzilla as a place where
Oleg Verych wrote:
[I wrote]
>> a) Would it save me more time than it costs me to fit into the system
>>(time that can be invested in actual debugging)?
>>This can only be answered after trying it.
>
> I'm not a wizard, if i will answer now: "No." [1:]
>
> [1:] Your User-Agent:
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:50:48 +0200
>
> [...]
>> Current identification of problems and patch association
>> have completely zero level of tracking or automation, while Bugzilla is
>> believed by somebody to have positive efficiency in bug tracking.
>
> I, as maintainer of a small subsystem,
Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> There are different people involved in
>> - patch handling,
>> - bug handling (bugs are reported by end-users),
>> therefore don't forget that PTS and BTS have different requirements.
>
> Sure. But if
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>>
>> I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
>> idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
>> one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions
On 6/19/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
> idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
> one of your mails. Thus hope of having more
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
> idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
> one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions on that.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't actually
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:08:13 +0200
>
>> Crazy development{0}. Somebody knows, that comprehensively testing
>> hibernation is their thing. I don't care about it, i care about foo, bar.
>> Thus i can apply for example lguest patches and implement and test new
>> asm-offset replacement,
Linus,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:01:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > The goal is to get all patches for a maintained subsystem submitted to
> > Linus by the maintainer.
Nice quote. I'm trying to make proposition/convince Adrian, who is
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> On 6/19/2007 4:05 PM, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> The Debian BTS requires you to either write emails with control messages
> >> or generating control messages with
Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> The -mm kernel already implements what your proposed PTS would do.
...
>> Plus it gives testers more or less all patches currently pending
>> inclusion into Linus' tree in one kernel they can test.
>
> Crazy
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> The goal is to get all patches for a maintained subsystem submitted to
> Linus by the maintainer.
Well, to be honest, I've actually over the years tried to have a policy of
*never* really having black-and-white policies.
The fact is, some
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:05:12PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>...
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
>...
> > > When patch in sent to this PTS, your lovely
> > >
On 6/19/2007 4:05 PM, Oleg Verych wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> The Debian BTS requires you to either write emails with control messages
>> or generating control messages with external tools.
...
>> In Bugzilla the same works through a web interface.
...
[Dropping noise for Debbugs, because interested people may join via Gmane]
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> > [Dear Debbug developers, i wish your ideas will be useful.]
> >
> > * From: Linus Torvalds
>
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
> * From: Linus Torvalds
> * Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
> * Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > I do agree. It _sounds_ like a great idea to try to control the
> > flow of patches better,
>
> There were some ideas, i will try to summarize:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> [Dear Debbug developers, i wish your ideas will be useful.]
>
> * From: Linus Torvalds
> * Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
> * Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
> >>
> >>
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
[Dear Debbug developers, i wish your ideas will be useful.]
* From: Linus Torvalds
* Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
* Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Martin Bligh wrote:
Sorry to be a wet
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
* From: Linus Torvalds
* Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
* Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 17:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
I do agree. It _sounds_ like a great idea to try to control the
flow of patches better,
There were some ideas, i will try to summarize:
* New
[Dropping noise for Debbugs, because interested people may join via Gmane]
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
[Dear Debbug developers, i wish your ideas will be useful.]
* From: Linus Torvalds
*
On 6/19/2007 4:05 PM, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The Debian BTS requires you to either write emails with control messages
or generating control messages with external tools.
...
In Bugzilla the same works through a web interface.
...
Basic
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:05:12PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
...
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:06:47AM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
...
When patch in sent to this PTS, your lovely
checkpatch/check-whatever-crap-has-being-sent
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The goal is to get all patches for a maintained subsystem submitted to
Linus by the maintainer.
Well, to be honest, I've actually over the years tried to have a policy of
*never* really having black-and-white policies.
The fact is, some maintainers
Oleg Verych wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The -mm kernel already implements what your proposed PTS would do.
...
Plus it gives testers more or less all patches currently pending
inclusion into Linus' tree in one kernel they can test.
Crazy
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
On 6/19/2007 4:05 PM, Oleg Verych wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The Debian BTS requires you to either write emails with control messages
or generating control messages with external tools.
Linus,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:01:19AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The goal is to get all patches for a maintained subsystem submitted to
Linus by the maintainer.
Nice quote. I'm trying to make proposition/convince Adrian, who is in
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:08:13 +0200
Crazy development{0}. Somebody knows, that comprehensively testing
hibernation is their thing. I don't care about it, i care about foo, bar.
Thus i can apply for example lguest patches and implement and test new
asm-offset replacement, *easily*.
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions on that.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't actually responing
On 6/19/07, Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions on
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:04:58 -0700 (PDT)
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Oleg Verych wrote:
I'm proposing kind of smart tracking, summarized before. I'm not an
idealist, doing manual work. Making tools -- is what i've picked up from
one of your mails. Thus hope of having more opinions on that.
Oleg Verych wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 04:27:15PM +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
There are different people involved in
- patch handling,
- bug handling (bugs are reported by end-users),
therefore don't forget that PTS and BTS have different requirements.
Sure. But if tracking was
* Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:50:48 +0200
[...]
Current identification of problems and patch association
have completely zero level of tracking or automation, while Bugzilla is
believed by somebody to have positive efficiency in bug tracking.
I, as maintainer of a small subsystem, can
Oleg Verych wrote:
[I wrote]
a) Would it save me more time than it costs me to fit into the system
(time that can be invested in actual debugging)?
This can only be answered after trying it.
I'm not a wizard, if i will answer now: No. [1:]
[1:] Your User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows;
40 matches
Mail list logo
