On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:29:54 +0000 Russell King <rmk+lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 09:13:19PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 07:32:19PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > > >... > > > There's another issue I want to raise concerning bugzilla. We have the > > > classic case of "not enough people reading bugzilla bugs" - which is one > > > of the biggest problems with bugzilla. Virtually no one in the ARM > > > community looks for ARM bugs in bugzilla. > > > > > > Let's not forget that it would be a waste of time for people to manually > > > check bugzilla for ARM bugs. There's soo few people reporting ARM bugs > > > into bugzilla that a weekly manual check by every maintainer would just > > > return the same old boring results for months and months at a time. > > >... > > > > What about having all ARM bugs in Bugzilla by default assigned to > > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? [1] > > That would also work, probably much better than setting up yet another > list. cpufreq (at least) does it this way. I don't know how well it is turning out in practice. It's useful if the initial report makes it clear (ie; to me) that the report has already gone to a mailing list so I don't go and forward a duplicate. But there are so few arm reports in bugzilla that this is all rather moot. > My experience of trying to get mbligh to do this when I stopped looking > after PCMCIA stuff was *extremely* painful. Wonder if it's become any > easier of late? He's a bad, bad man ;) But he's been turning these things around pretty rapidly lately. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
