That's one of the specific options I proposed. I think it would be best
if it were focussed on lkml reports rather than noise from everywhere,
and also if it kept the maintainers' interface as simple and explicit as
possible. And yes, who is the question that I'm pondering as well.
-- Ken. brownfld@irridia.comOn Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 10:56:53AM +0100, Dead2 wrote: | > What might take out a few birds with one stone is to have someone on | > > lkml become an "LKML MAINTAINER": collect patches and bug reports in a | > > central place. This would include: | > > | > > 1) The patch and/or bug report | > > 2) The entire LKML thread, with "important" messages marked | > > 3) Personal input, prioritization, severity info, etc. | > | > Good idea but _who_ will do that? | | Just a thought that popped into my head.. | What about using some kind of BugTrack system for this? | Where people can report a bug, and file patches for them. | There would indeed be some situations where 2-3-4 maybe | more patches are filed to fix one bug. Then the maintainer | can easily look through the patches and descide what to use.. | | -=Dead2=- | | | - | To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in | the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org | More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html | Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 23 2001 - 21:00:19 EST