Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Regression tracking

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:31:18 AM Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:02:22PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Yeah, definitely. One afaics important part that needs to be done in
> > this area: make bugzilla.kernel.org work better. At least some (or maybe
> > even quite a lot?) of the bugs reported there afaics seem to not get
> > proper attention from the right people. Due to that I'd assume some
> > testers will have come to conclusions like "testing for regressions and
> > bugs is not worth the trouble, as the kernel developers are not
> > interested in the bugs I file anyway".
> 
> In my case, I am only looking into the kernel.org bugzilla if someone
> pings me about it. Usually I get the upstream bug reports via email. And
> this is part of the problem, that we have multiple ways that we teach
> users how to report bugs/regressions. That really increases the effort
> needed for you to compile the regression list and keep track of
> everything in there.
> 
> So the right step here is to discuss how we want to get bugs reported
> and settle on a single way we tell the users and testers. From there it
> is much easier to get the reports dispatched to the right people.

I need to mention here that PM and ACPI regressions in bugzilla.kernel.org
are actually tracked by a team at Intel.  We track all of the PM and ACPI
bugs filed via the BZ, including regressions, and we're going to be doing
that.

Thanks,
Rafael