more bug triage fun

[Kevin Fenzi]

Greetings. 

Finally sat down to look at moving forward on the kernel bug traging
stuff (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelBugTriage )

Some more thoughts: 

Would it be useful to add tracker bugs for [PATCH] bugs? Or is that
easy enough to query for if you are looking for them? Should we ask
submitters to make sure they also submit upstream?

Should we have any tracker for [RFE] bugs as well? 

I noticed we have: 

Bug 126342 Meta bug: custom built kernels -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126342

Should we close any crazy custom kernel config issues as a duplicate of
that one?

kevin

[Chuck Ebbert]

On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 23:37:53 -0600
Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; wrote:

>  Greetings. 
>  
>  Finally sat down to look at moving forward on the kernel bug traging
>  stuff (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelBugTriage )
>  
>  Some more thoughts: 
>  
>  Would it be useful to add tracker bugs for [PATCH] bugs? Or is that
>  easy enough to query for if you are looking for them? Should we ask
>  submitters to make sure they also submit upstream?
>   
I've been adding Keywords: Patch, but a tracker might be better.

That can mean several different things:

1) A patch to our kernel.spec file or other fedora-only thing.
2) A link to an upstream patch that fixes the bug in our kernel.
3) Something meant for upstream.

>  Should we have any tracker for [RFE] bugs as well? 
>   
Probably not worth the trouble.

>  I noticed we have: 
>  
>  Bug 126342 Meta bug: custom built kernels -
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126342
>  
>  Should we close any crazy custom kernel config issues as a duplicate of
>  that one?
>   
Yes, I think that's what it's for.

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 02:22:11 -0400
Chuck Ebbert <cebbert(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 23:37:53 -0600
>  Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  > Greetings. 
>  > 
>  > Finally sat down to look at moving forward on the kernel bug traging
>  > stuff (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelBugTriage )
>  > 
>  > Some more thoughts: 
>  > 
>  > Would it be useful to add tracker bugs for [PATCH] bugs? Or is that
>  > easy enough to query for if you are looking for them? Should we ask
>  > submitters to make sure they also submit upstream?
>  > 
>  
>  I've been adding Keywords: Patch, but a tracker might be better. 
ok. I can make one I guess. ;) 

>  That can mean several different things:
>  
>  1) A patch to our kernel.spec file or other fedora-only thing.
>  2) A link to an upstream patch that fixes the bug in our kernel.
>  3) Something meant for upstream. 
Would it be useful to note witch it was? (If we can tell). 
I guess easiest might be: 

[PATCH/Fedora]

[PATCH/current]

[PATCH/UPSTREAM]

?

Or too complicated?

>  > Should we have any tracker for [RFE] bugs as well? 
>  > 
>  
>  Probably not worth the trouble. 
ok

>  > I noticed we have: 
>  > 
>  > Bug 126342 Meta bug: custom built kernels -
>  > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=126342
>  > 
>  > Should we close any crazy custom kernel config issues as a
>  > duplicate of that one?
>  > 
>  
>  Yes, I think that's what it's for. 
Sounds good.

I think I will see about working on the rawhide bugs this week if
possible. I already moved some of the video ones over. 

kevin