On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 02:22:11 -0400 Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 23:37:53 -0600 > Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> 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
_______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
