On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 12:27:19PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > 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. Got it, we will follow this approach, to track the issue but remove them after a week or two. > > > 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
