From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42F194A6 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:12:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC3E81FB for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:12:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 16:12:09 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Takashi Iwai In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1de3c642-a4b7-1065-5c35-ba32866d471d@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug reporting feedback loop List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 22 Jun 2017, Takashi Iwai wrote: > - The inconsistent bug tracking over the whole kernel areas: > which way to report purely depends on the subsystem. Even inside a > subsystem, some prefer bugzilla while some don't. Agreed that this might be annoying for the reporters, but I don't think we want to go towards pushing maintainers to use one unified solution. That'd be counter-productive. > It would be great to have someone assigned helping for bug tracking in > both upstream (kernel subsystem) side, and in distributor side. We have > a better coordination regarding the security bugs, and it should be > extended for larger areas. Completely agreed. But given the problems we've had finding someone who'd be tracking regressions (which is a small subset of the whole "bug handling"), I'm a bit skeptical. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs