Hi Rafael etc. On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 00:57 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 7 of July 2008, Rene Herman wrote: > > On 06-07-08 23:56, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > BTW, the automated emails I'm sending are to let the reporters know > > > that I'm interested in the current status of the bug. They are free > > > not to reply to them, but in that case I assume they don't really > > > care whether or not I'm tracking the bugs they reported. > > > > I did/do wonder by the way when I get them if I should be replying if > > the status is unchanged from my viewpoint... > > > > I believe your automated emails say something like "please verify if > > this problem is still relevant" but don't spell out what do after you > > verified that it is. It's sort of natural to take that as "I need to > > reply telling people it's fixed if it is but can remain silent if > > nothing changed". > > The exact wording is > > "The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > from 2.6.25. Please verify if it still should be listed." > > > Being more explicit about liking a reporter to report "yes, nothing > > changed" would probably be good if that IS what's wanted. > > Well, I can change it to > > "Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know." > > if that's better. > I would suggest that you should assume it's still relevant until the bugzilla entry gets closed. The person fixing the bug should be responsible for modifying the report to say that a patch is available and then has been merged (or for saying it's an invalid report etc). This way, you're making the whole process less burdensome rather than so. Regards, Nigel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
