The bugzillla Dave Jones wrote:
>whilst on the subject of bugzilla:
>a few people (myself included) go through the bug database once a week
>or so pruning out-of-date/fixed entries. So far the ones I've closed have
>been quite sensible, but there are a few there of the form..
>
>"xxx doesn't work in 2.5.47", then Rusty's module rewrite happened,
>and the tester didn't (or couldn't) see if it got fixed in subsequent
>kernels. I'll send out pings to such reports when they get to something
>like 5 kernels old. If the problem then doesn't get re-ACKed, I'll
>close it. Any objections?
>
> Dave
>
Thankfully osdl has been set up with very useful fields for such things.
It sounds like cases that you are describing should be rejected with a
status of either "UNREPRODUCIBLE" if the bug report was decently done,
but you can't reproduce it, or "INSUFFICIENT_DATA" if the bug report was
filed inadequately. This can serve as a prompt to the original filer to
re-open it with better data.
I don't think you should hesitate to do that at least once for a bug
fits either of those cases.
-Tupshin
-
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 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:17 EST