Re: Planned changes for to reduce the "Bugzilla blues"

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 9/30/22 08:47, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 29.09.22 15:04, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:22:35PM +0000, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote:
We do have ability to fund development efforts -- LF has been the primary
sponsor behind over the past 3 years. However, there must be
a clear, strong, and well-articulated mandate from the community. From what I
heard, the vast majority of maintainers simply want a web form that would
allow someone to:

1. clearly state what kernel version they are using
2. clearly describe what they were trying to do
3. explain what they expected vs. what they got
4. attach any files
5. give this bug report a unique identifier

Sometimes there are days where I think "let's go down the 'do everything
by mail' rabbit hole some more and couple a pastebin and a somewhat
improved regzbot with an app (usable both locally and on the web) that
helps users preparing a report they can then send with their usual
mailer". And then there are days "ohh, no, that might be a totally
stupid thing to do". :-/

Emails are absolutely horrible in terms of keeping track of the state of
the issue. Who has replied? Who has provided the necessary data? Where
can this data be found? What if a person has forgotten to "Reply All"
and instead clicked "Reply"? Hell, no. Then people get swamped with
their own emails, the previous email from this discussion went straight
to SPAM for my email provider. It's too easy to lose track of everything.

The kernel bugzilla has helped resolve critical issues and add
impressive features with dozens of people collaborating. This is nearly
impossible to carry out using email except for dedicated developers
working on something.

In the LKML and other Open Source mailing lists I've seen a ton of RFC
patches with no follow up. Even core developers themselves aren't
particularly enjoying the format. And those patches often perish and
work goes to waste.

Then a designated person would look through the bug report and either:

a. quick-close it (with the usual "talk to your distro" or "don't use a
    tainted kernel" etc)

I think having some app would be good here, as it could help gathering
everything and catch problems early, to prevent users from spending a
lot of time on preparing a report that will be ignored.

b. identify the responsible maintainers and notify them

The hard part is not technical -- the hard part is that "designated person."


Being a bugmaster is a thankless job that leads to burnout, regardless of how
well you are paid. Everyone is constantly irate at you from both ends [...]

Tell me about it. Nevertheless I sometimes wonder if I should give it a
try once I got all this regression tracking thing established somewhat
more, as in the end there I'm kind of a bugmaster for regressions already...

Before we try to fix/replace bugzilla,

Just to be sure: I assume you meant "replacing bugzilla or fixing it for
real" here, and not my band-aid efforts outlined at the start of this
thread? Or do you have a problem with what I proposed to at least make
things less bad for now?

we really need to figure out the entire
process and pinpoint who is going to be the one in charge of bug reports. If
you think that LF should establish a fund for a position like that, then you
should probably approach LF fellows (Greg KH, Shuah Khan), who can then talk
to LF management. The IT team will be happy to support you with the tooling,
but tooling should come second to that -- otherwise we'll just be replacing an
old and rusty dumpster on fire with a new and shiny dumpster on fire.

Bugzilla with all its issues is still super convenient.

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux