On 02.09.22 14:26, Philip Li wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 12:54:05PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 01.09.22 15:24, Philip Li wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 02:12:39PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > [...] > > Thanks for the encouragement :-) The flow/process is very helpful. We will follow > up a few things before we resuming the tracking > [...] Great, thx! >>> Usuaally, we also ping/discuss with developer when an issue enters >>> mainline if there's no response. This is one reason we tries to connect >>> with regzbot to track the issue on mainline, but we missed the point that >>> you mention below (it need look important). >> >> I just want to prevent the list of tracked regressions becoming too long >> (and thus obscure) due to many issues that are not worth tracking, as I >> fear people will then start to ignore regzbot and its reports. :-/ > > got it, we will be very careful to selectly tracking. Maybe we don't need > track the issue if it is responsed by developer quickly and can be solved > directly. Maybe, but that will always bear the risk that something gets in the way (say a big problem is found in the proposed fix) and the regression in the end gets forgotten and remains unfixed -- which my tracking tries to prevent. Hence I'd say doing it the other way around (adding all regressions reported by the 0-day folks to regzbot and remove reports after a week or two if it's apparently something that can be ignored) would be the better approach. > But only track the one that is valuable, while it need more discussion, extra > testing, investigation and so one, that such problem can't be straight forward > to solve in short time. For such case, the tracking helps us to get back to this > even when there's a pause, like developer is blocked by testing or need switch > to other effort. This is just my thinking. Yeah, the problem is just: it's easy to forget the regression to the tracking. :-/ >> Are you or someone from the 0day team an LPC? Then we could discuss this >> in person there. > > We will join 2 MC (Rust, Testing) but all virtually, thus not able to discuss in > person :-( Okay, was worth asking. :-D > But we are glad to join any further discussion or follow the suggested > rule if you have some discussion with other CI and reporters. Yeah, I'm pretty sure we'll find a way to make everybody happy. Ciao, Thorsten
