RE: [CentOS-devel] Re: kernel-2.6.9-42.37.EL.c4test is available for
i686 and x86_64 in the Testing Repo)
johnny at centos.org
Sun Jan 7 11:29:53 UTC 2007
On Sun, 2007-01-07 at 11:05 +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> John Summerfield wrote:
> >> its to report issues, however these testing kernels are a special case.
> > "issues" is one of those weasel words, whose meaning I simply do not
> > understand. Can you pleas expand on what you mean this time?
> The Cambridge dictionary defines it as : "a subject or problem which
> people are thinking and talking about"
> seems quite clear to me.
> - KB
The really answer is this:
We want people to submit Bugs to the mantis ... and we want to community
to look through and answer the bug requests. CentOS is community based.
We would also like a knowledgeable team of "Trusted Users" (thanks for
volunteering to Steven Smoogen ... he is going to be one of these users)
be able to provide answers, as well as have the knowledge to open
upstream bugzilla entries when those are required. I do want to put
links in the upstream bugzilla that point back to the centos entry, so
that users searching in either can see both.
We (the developers) will also (from time to time) create "issue
trackers" in the bugs database to report positive and negative feedback
for packages that we put into the testing repo.
Mantis is good for both things. The argument goes that more people see
it in the mailing list ... that is true, HOWEVER, for historical find
purposes mantis is much easier to search and find items with than the
mailing list. Mantis also allows us to easily tie issues together to
make it easier for the Developers to find issues that we know about.
That does not mean we want to replace the mailing list with Mantis ...
bugs.centos.org should be used for BUGS (ie, something is not working as
it should and/or the package needs some action to fix it) ... OR ...
the developers have created a specific "issue tracker" that we want to
use Mantis as the back end for.
It is my feeling that items that are "Upstream required" actions should
be listed both in bugs.centos.org and an upstream bugzilla ... and
should not be "final actioned" until they are final actioned upstream.
And maybe not even then ... as in the case of this bug:
That allows CentOS users to know about the bug if they search the centos
bugs database, and it allows users of the upstream product see that
CentOS is not just a "Sponge Project" that keeps taking and taking while
giving nothing back. It is good for the upstream provider and their
customers to know that CentOS is providing them a huge benefit by
providing issues to support for correction (sometimes with suggested
patches and solutions included).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20070107/2bd65bf1/attachment.bin
More information about the CentOS-devel