On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 11:48:16AM -0600, Eli Carter wrote:
> >Also, we could have a non-web interface, (telnet or gopher to the bug
> >DB, or control it by E-Mail).
> Can you interface with bugzilla's database backend maybe? It seems like
> refactoring bugzilla might be better?
It's an annoyance to me that the current bugzilla we use can only
do 1 way email. Ie, I receive email when things change, but I can't
reply to that mail and have my comments auto-added.
Other bugzillas can do this, so I think either some switch needs
to be enabled, or theres some extension not present.
(I'm a complete bugzilla weenie, and no nothing about how its set up).
> >It could warn the user if they attach an un-decoded oops that their
> >bug report isn't as useful as it could be, and if they mention a
> >distribution kernel version, that it's not a tree that the developers
> >will necessarily be familiar with
> Perhaps a more generalized hook into bugzilla for 'validating' a bug
> report, then code specific validators for kernel work?
Its a nice idea, but I think it's a lot of effort to get it right,
when a human can look at the dump, realise its not decoded, and
send a request back in hardly any time at all.
I also don't trust things like this where if something goes wrong,
we could lose the bug report. People are also more likely to ping-pong
,argue or "how do I..." with a human than they are with an automated robot.
Dave
-- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - 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 : Mon Dec 23 2002 - 22:00:24 EST