--Larry McVoy <lm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote (on Friday, June 27, 2003 17:19:54 -0700):
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 05:00:22PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>> From: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:36:30 -0700
>>
>> So, you'd be happy so long as bugz sent mail to the netdev mailing
>> lists instead of to you?
>>
>> The best power I have to scale is the delete key in my email
>> reader, when I delete an email it's gone and that's it.
>>
>> bugme bugs don't have this attribute, they are like emails that
>> persist forever until someone does something about them, and this is
>> the big problem I have with it.
>
> I've proposed this before and nobody listened but maybe this time...
>
> I think what you want is a bug database which distinguishes between
> filed bugs and reviewed bugs. You want to capture all bug reports,
> as Alan says (he's right, there is no question about it, you need to
> capture the data). You also want an *automatic* way for bugs to just
> rot. Anyone can file a bug but unless someone with expertise in the
> area reviews the bug and agrees to do something about it, the bug rots.
>
> It's level 1 (capture) and level 2 (we really need to do something about
> this some day). Level 1 will have zillions of duplicates and tons of
> other noise. Level 2 should be a small list, no duplicates, carefully
> managed.
That's a trivial change to make if you want it. we just add a "reviewed"
/ "certified" state between "new" and "assigned". Yes, might be a good
idea. I'm not actually that convinced that "assigned" is overly useful
in the context of open-source, but that's a separate discussion.
I'm hoping to get a discussion going at Kernel Summit / OLS on how
people want this to evolve, I'll add this one to the list ... thanks.
M.
|