[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] Patch review, bug/regression tracking, device hiererchy extensions

Rafael J. Wysocki rjw at sisk.pl
Fri Jun 15 21:53:20 UTC 2012

On Friday, June 15, 2012, John 'Warthog9' Hawley wrote:
> On 06/15/2012 03:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, June 15, 2012, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> >> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:40:46 +0200
> >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw at sisk.pl> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to discuss the following things at the Kernel Summit:
> >>>
> >>> (1) Patch review: Are there any problems with patch review that we need to
> >>>     address and if so, then how to do that; Can we have patchwork again?
> Patchwork is on the todo, as has been mentioned before, and the
> infrastructure is in place to get it back up shortly, I'd expect it to
> be up before the end of the month.

That's good to know, thanks!

> >>> (2) Bug/regression tracking: Is there any need or would it be useful to track
> >>>     kernel bug/regression reports?; If so, then what process would be most
> >>>     convenient for that?; Is Bugzilla useful to anyone?
> >>
> >> This could be a more general topic about kernel.org infrastructure.
> > 
> > Well, I think there are two things to consider here.  First, a process of
> > tracking bugs (do we need BZ at all or perhaps we can use something else
> > and how exactly we are going to use that) and second, an infrastructure needed
> > for that.  They seem to be kind of separate, although obviously the set of
> > processes we can choose from has to depend on the admins bandwidth limitations,
> > so to speak. 
> There's a couple of things with respect to BZ.  First is that there's a
> lot of disparate users of it, from the kernel developers to people
> trying to track various metrics.  The second is the way Bugzilla gets
> used can, and is, very different even amongst sub-systems.  Folks see it
> as useful for some specific piece of their process, and they use it for
> that, there's no consistency in how it's used.

All of the above are valid observations.  Moreover, I know of subsystems that
don't want the BZ at all and are never going to use it.  Still, to me, the
question is if we need and/or want anything common that will be used by
everyone and consistently.

> >> For bz specifically, it would be handy if certain products/subsystems
> >> were forwarded to other bugzillas (e.g. for graphics we tend to use fdo
> >> and would like to keep things in one place).
> This can already be done, sorta.  Since a category or something just
> needs to be associated with an e-mail address, an entire category could
> just go to an e-mail address associated with the other bugzilla.  There
> is no, to my knowledge anyway, existing mechanism to do inter-bugzilla
> referencing (like inter-wiki kinda stuff).  So that's doable right now,
> but I don't know of anyone who's asked for that.
> >> But I think patchwork is still down and there have been trouble with
> >> some of the wikis; maybe we should discuss and figure out which
> >> services are the most useful and see if the admins have the bandwidth
> >> to handle it all?
> Like I said, probably have that back up before the end of the month.

Patchwork will be good to have and we'll need a process for adding
mailing lists to it I think.

As far as the BZ is concerned, I don't think there's any hope it will be
used consistently and universally within our community.  Some subsystems will
use it, others won't.  So, perhaps it would be a good idea to add bug
categories when requested by subsystem maintainers and remove the ones that
no one is going to take care of?


More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss mailing list