netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: networking bugs and bugme.osdl.org

To: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: networking bugs and bugme.osdl.org
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:44:48 -0700
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1056828052.6295.31.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <3EFCC1EB.2070904@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030627.151906.102571486.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <3EFCC6EE.3020106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030627.170022.74744550.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20030628001954.GD18676@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <34700000.1056760028@[10.10.2.4]> <1056828052.6295.31.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
--Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote (on Saturday, June 28, 2003 
20:20:53 +0100):

> On Sad, 2003-06-28 at 01:27, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Most bugzilla's seem to use VERIFIED for this, and it means people who
> have better things to do can just pull bugs that are verified and/or
> tagged with "patch" in the attachments

Hmmm. we have VERIFIED set up to mean that the proposed fix has been
verified to work. Could reshuffle it, or we could find a different
word I guess - reusing the same one might cause confusion (on the
other hand ...using the same word for different things in different
bugzillas is confusing too ...)

M.



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