Development process and quality assurance

Posted Jul 20, 2005 8:07 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346)
In reply to: Development process and quality assurance by error27
Parent article: Kernel Summit 2005: Development process and quality assurance

Um... I did hit preview but I was too sleepy to read my post apparently.

I was trying to say that I support the idea of bug tracking websites.

Redhat does a better job tracking kernel bugs than bugzilla.kernel.org for two reasons. First Redhat developers actively use their bugzilla. Second they require the bug reports to be more focused in terms of features and kernel versions.

I was also trying to express disapointment with several features in bugzilla. Perhaps if these were fixed more developers would use it.

Also I was going to give a shout out to Adrian Bunk who is a hero and responds to many of the bugzilla reports on bugzilla.kernel.org.

And then I was going to sleep because I can barely keep my head up anymore and certainly can't write coherently.

to post comments

Development process and quality assurance

Posted Aug 11, 2005 7:46 UTC (Thu) by SlOrbA (subscriber, #29900) [Link]

It's also good to have a look at the user base of these bugzillas (kernel.org and RedHat). I'd bet that RedHat recieves more bug-reports from non-developing users than kernel.org.

I'm not very familiar with Bugzilla administration and there might be a feature for multiple bugzilla-database interaction, but if there isn't there should be. When Open Source keeps on growing and the development has taken the distributed way of doing things with GIT, there also should be distibuted way of handling bug-reporting.

Example: Non-developing user can't mount a usb high-speed storage to distro X. This user then makes bugzilla bug entry to distro X's bugzilla and probably not under kernel, but maybe under nautilus. How is this bug going to find it's way to maintainer of the kernel subsystem in question?