On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 09:03:39AM +0000, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote: > 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 public-inbox.org 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"? E-mail *clients* are horrible to keep track of state. E-mail itself, as in RFC822 (and newer), SMTP and other protocols, only handle transport of data. As the data within the e-mail body is free-formed, and wasn't meant to track items and their state, clients never evolved in that direction. This could (possibly) be (partially) fixed, but likely at a very high development cost, and getting users on board would be very hard too. I do agree with Thorsten though, I'm often tempted to go through the "let's do everything by e-mail" path. More than 10 years ago, I worked for a large OEM that had an e-mail frontend for integration and testing. You would send a specially-crafted e-mail to a bot, with a base image version, plus a list of repositories and branches, and the bot would build a new image for you, run all the automated integration tests, and if you requested it (and had permission to do so), would push the image down a manual testing queue. It was just magic. > Hell, no. Then people get swamped with their own emails, Bugzilla won't solve this. The huge elephant in the room is that most maintainers are overworked. Whether a bug report arrives in my mailbox as an e-mail straight from the reporter or from a bug tracker will make very little difference if I don't have time to look into it (I would even argue that bug trackers are even worse there: if I'm really short of time, I'm more likely to prioritize replying to e-mails instead of having to open a link in a web browser). As long as we don't address the maintainer bottleneck in the kernel, bug tracking will suffer. > 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." > > > > +1 > > > >> 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. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
