--Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote (on Friday, June 27, 2003 17:19:54 -0700): > On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 05:00:22PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: >> From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> >> Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:36:30 -0700 >> >> So, you'd be happy so long as bugz sent mail to the netdev mailing >> lists instead of to you? >> >> The best power I have to scale is the delete key in my email >> reader, when I delete an email it's gone and that's it. >> >> bugme bugs don't have this attribute, they are like emails that >> persist forever until someone does something about them, and this is >> the big problem I have with it. > > I've proposed this before and nobody listened but maybe this time... > > I think what you want is a bug database which distinguishes between > filed bugs and reviewed bugs. You want to capture all bug reports, > as Alan says (he's right, there is no question about it, you need to > capture the data). You also want an *automatic* way for bugs to just > rot. Anyone can file a bug but unless someone with expertise in the > area reviews the bug and agrees to do something about it, the bug rots. > > It's level 1 (capture) and level 2 (we really need to do something about > this some day). Level 1 will have zillions of duplicates and tons of > other noise. Level 2 should be a small list, no duplicates, carefully > managed. That's a trivial change to make if you want it. we just add a "reviewed" / "certified" state between "new" and "assigned". Yes, might be a good idea. I'm not actually that convinced that "assigned" is overly useful in the context of open-source, but that's a separate discussion. I'm hoping to get a discussion going at Kernel Summit / OLS on how people want this to evolve, I'll add this one to the list ... thanks. M. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
