Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
(...)
* After each major kernel release bugzilla should send a kind request for
retesting to all open bugs.
Good idea, IMO.
Another alternative would be to send such a request if a given bug had
no activity for, say, 6 months.
(...)
* Last but not least our bugzilla just looks ugly (it is _very_ important,
I feel disgusted each time I have to work with it, OTOH I love using
gitweb - you get the idea).
Well, that doesn't matter to me as long as it's useful. Any ideas how to
improve that? ;-)
Upgrade to Bugzilla 3.0.x. Its interface looks a bit better (and has a
handful of useful features).
(...)
Hmm, what about switching to some proprietary bug tracking system just to
talk Linus into writing a superior one? ;-)
I think that we just have to get an idea of what exactly is needed. IOW, we
need to know exactly how we're going to handle bugs as much as we needed
to know exactly how we were going the handle the flow of changes.
Perhaps it would be necessary to use a proprietary bug tracking system for some
time for this purpose, but _maybe_ we can figure it out without anything like
that.
How do others track bugs for software projects? RedHat, Novell, IBM,
others - anyone reading this thread?
--
Tomasz Chmielewski
http://wpkg.org
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
