On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 12:26 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > Right now, rebases to newer kernel releases is the single provider > of the majority of bugfixes we get reported. If we stopped doing > that, we'd pretty much be giving up all hope of fixing kernel bugs. Er, I think you mean "bug closures" not necessarily "fixes"? We close a whole load of kernel bugs with a message along the lines of "we rebased the kernel and have no clue if we addressed this bug, but we're closing it anyway -- please reopen if it's not fixed". Do we have a clue how many of those bugs remain closed because the bug is actually fixed, and how many of them remain closed because the reporter never looked back after filing it? (Not that I'm arguing against this way of closing bugs -- with the kwality of bug reporting and follow-up we get, I think it's the right thing for us to do. But let's be careful about what the numbers mean.) -- dwmw2 _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
