From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Cc: ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug reporting feedback loop
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:36:13 +0200 (CEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1706221422360.30709@cbobk.fhfr.pm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1de3c642-a4b7-1065-5c35-ba32866d471d@redhat.com>
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Laura Abbott wrote:
> Fedora tends to follow the most recent stable kernel very closely
> (e.g. 4.11.6 is currently pending for Fedora 24, 25, and 26).
> This works well enough, but there still seem to be some
> disconnects in the bug reporting process. Examples I can think of:
>
> - When users report bugs on the Fedora tracker that look like
> actual upstream bugs, what's the best way to have those reported?
> I typically end up having to summarize from the Fedora bugzilla
> and send an e-mail which ends up being tedious. Can we make this
> bug reporting easier for non-kernel developers?
Just as a data point -- we do a "Kernel of the day" build of a branch that
follows Linus' tree (with a few SUSE specific patches floating on top of
it) and provide it in an optional package repository.
That allows the reporter to easily check whether the issue has been fixed
in latest upstream without needing to have the skills required to compile
own kernel.
If the issue is confirmed to be present in latest upstream as well, our
internal person / maintainer responsible for that particular area usually
takes over (there are cases when the reporter prefers to report the bug
upstream by himself though).
I am not sure if there is a way how to improve this process even further
... do you have any particular ideas?
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-22 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-21 22:34 Laura Abbott
2017-06-22 12:36 ` Jiri Kosina [this message]
2017-06-27 17:53 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-27 18:26 ` Laurent Pinchart
2017-06-27 18:30 ` James Bottomley
2017-06-27 18:41 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-06-27 19:02 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-27 19:46 ` Guenter Roeck
2017-06-28 10:19 ` Mark Brown
2017-06-27 22:35 ` Jiri Kosina
2017-06-28 6:59 ` Takashi Iwai
2017-06-27 18:31 ` Takashi Iwai
2017-06-27 19:04 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2017-06-28 8:04 ` Daniel Vetter
2017-06-22 14:08 ` Takashi Iwai
2017-06-22 14:12 ` Jiri Kosina
2017-06-22 14:24 ` Takashi Iwai
2017-06-28 13:12 ` Jani Nikula
2017-06-28 13:13 ` Takashi Iwai
2017-06-22 15:34 ` James Bottomley
2017-06-23 14:52 ` Greg KH
2017-06-23 20:28 ` Jiri Kosina
2017-06-25 17:11 ` Laura Abbott
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LSU.2.20.1706221422360.30709@cbobk.fhfr.pm \
--to=jikos@kernel.org \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=labbott@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox