You must be doing things very differently from a lot of other people if
you think that's the case.
IF that happened, it would actually be great. That's what I'm arguing for.
And it was basically what Adrian was doing!
Actually, looking at Adrian's regression lists, yes. lkml worked better
than bugzilla did. By at _least_ a factor of two.
What's the difference between bugzilla and lkml.org? Both have search
buttons. Both archive the old stuff. Both can be pointed to.
I don't know what the perfect setup is, but I do know that bugzilla is
very close to be totally useless for the top-level maintainers.
Try to think like a person who doesn't maintain *one* specific file in the
kernel, but who can actually make a good judgement about a lot of things,
or at least funnel a problem report to the right person?
And now, imagine that that person is also fairly busy (exactly *because*
he's not looking at a single file, he may be maintaining a huge subsystem
that has multiple submaintainers etc).
And ask yourself whether bugzilla really helps.
I think bugzilla really only works for very "directed" issues. If you
already know exactly which driver is affected (which is often wrong
anyway: some of the bugs that were due timer breakage got blamed as disk
hangs!) it's almost totally useless.
And yes, maybe that's why you have a much higher opinion of bugzilla than
I do. To _me_ bugzilla is a total mess. There's absolutely _zero_ useful
information there. And I'm pretty certain that is true of a *lot* of other
people too. But if you have a small project, or you maintain a very
specific (and clearly delineated) part of a big project, bugzilla probably
looks a lot more palatable.
Linus
-
