On 1/11/21 10:55 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Am 11.01.21 um 19:14 schrieb Randy Dunlap:
>> On 1/10/21 4:10 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> * About 66 of those ~200 components will assign bugs to email addresses
>>> that look valid, but 125 of them end with @kernel-bugs.osdl.org or
>>> @kernel-bugs.kernel.org. Those domains do not exist anymore, mails
>>> sent there bounce ('Unrouteable address'). It's possible that the
>>> server might be rewriting those domain names and nevertheless
>>> delivers new reports and comments by mails to some human; but it
>>> seems more like they never get mailed to anyone and thus just linger
>>> in the database; no wonder quite a few of bugs filed against such
>>> components never get a single reply (see below).
>>
>> Those @kernel-bugs email addresses should not be a problem:
>> https://korg.docs.kernel.org/bugzilla.html#real-assignees-vs-virtual-assignees
>
> Ahh, interesting, many many thx. Stupid me also forgot to put Konstantin
> on the CC list (I had planned to do that, but forgot when I actually
> sent the patch :-/ ), which likely would have pointed be there as well.
Yes, since I got that from him. :)
>> AFAIK, USB bugs go to linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>
> Those seem to use the approach the link above describes.
>
>> SCSI bugs go to linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
>
> That's one of the email address that are in the database for real, which
> were mentioned in my patch description as 'looking valid':
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/describecomponents.cgi?product=IO%2FStorage
>
>> netdev didn't want bugs sent there automatically IIRC, so a
>> human takes care of doing that if warranted.
>
> Ahh, good to know, it's really not obvious there are some humans working
> there to that take care of this. That and all those bugs that never get
> a reply look really like things are not working well.
>
>> Andrew Morton takes MM bugs and Cc:s them to linux-mm mailing list
>> and then asks for discussion to continue on the mailing list.
>
> Then what use it bugzilla here? Wouldn't it be better for people to go
> straight to the list?
Might as well, yes.
>> We
>
> Who is "we"? We as in "the kernel community"? Or is there actually a
Anyone who is up for it -- yes, mostly "community."
> smaller group of people you are referring to which is actively
> maintaining the list of products and components on bugzilla.kernel.org?
nope.
> Just trying to understand things better here, as there are other things
> that look strange to me and were mentioned in the patch description. For
> example: Why are there only 200 products and components on
> bugzilla.kernel.org (some of them for historic things like the
> ac-kernels) while the MAINTAINERS file has more than 2200 entries?
I wouldn't want a separate entry for each SPI/GPIO/regulator/USB etc.
device. That's just IMO...
>> could/should probably see if we can add more project-specific
>> mailing lists to the automatic reporting
>
> Guess that would mean taking to a lot of maintainers/mailing list admins
> if they are okay with that. Who would do that?
whoever is motivated to do so.
>> -- but probably not LKML.
>> Otherwise some bug reports might never be heard about.
>
> Yeah, agreed.
>
> FWIW: I don't care too much about this whole thing, the whole idea for
> the approach I'm currently driving forward started when I did regression
> tracking in 2017. Back then I noticed quite a lot of bug reports on
> bugzilla.kernel.org never got a single reply, even if they were good and
> looked valid. That's why I brought this forward on the maintainers
> summit (https://lwn.net/Articles/738216/ ) and there it was discussed to
> basically go the route I'm taking currently. But I'm totally find to
> adjust that route if there are good reasons, especially as that
> discussion happened some time ago.
cheers.
--
~Randy
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submit-checklist.html
