[Top] [All Lists]

Re: networking bugs and

To: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: networking bugs and
From: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 28 Jun 2003 00:08:56 +0100
Cc: greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mbligh@xxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20030627.151906.102571486.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3EFCBD12.3070101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030627.145456.115915594.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3EFCC1EB.2070904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030627.151906.102571486.davem@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Gwe, 2003-06-27 at 23:19, David S. Miller wrote:
>    Forcing people to continue to retransmit the same report just pisses
>    people off, and in the end will get you less useful reports than if
>    you had flagged the report as 'please-gimme-more-info'.
> And this is different from patch submission in what way?

Tried doing an SQL query or text analysis for similarities on random
messages lurking in private mailboxes or mixed up in list archives.
Its really hard.

Now try doing that with bugzilla and its really easy. Nobody is saying
"Dave shall use bugzilla", maybe you can find an underling to care,
maybe the only time you want to use it is to say "thats really freaky,
who else is seeing it and what hardware"

>From Red Hat bugzilla I've done statistical analysis of IDE failure
patterns, I've also  dug up year old mislaid patches that would have
been lost forever otherwise because the one person who fixed it was
missed in the noise, even though lots of the noise was people hitting
that same bug

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>