[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH 1/1] Update bug reporting page



On 02/23/2012 03:49 PM, Dave Allan wrote:
> Remove suggestion that people file bugs against RHEL 5 and add a
> suggestion that people increase the visibility of their bugs by
> mentioning them on libvir-list.
> ---
>  docs/bugs.html.in |   83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
> 

Should we also mention that "bugs" include any situation where "the code
works but the documentation is unclear", as well as cases of "a cool
feature that is not implemented yet"?

> +    <p>
> +      It's always a good idea to file bug reports, as the process of
> +      filing the report always makes it easier to describe the
> +      problem, and the bug number provides a quick way of referring to
> +      the problem.  However, not everybody in the community pays
> +      attention to bugzilla, so after you file a bug, asking questions
> +      and submitting patches on <a href="contact.html">the libvirt
> +      mailing lists</a> will increase your bug's visibility and
> +      encourage people to think about your problem.  Don't hesitate to
> +      ask questions on the list, as others may know of existing
> +      solutions or be interested in collaborating with you on finding
> +      a solution.  Patches are always appreciated, and it's likely
> +      that someone else has the same problem you do!

Quite true.  In particular, in my own workflow, I find it easier to 'git
am' a patch sent to the list than to open a web browser and download an
attached patch.

> @@ -34,26 +59,37 @@
>      <h2><a name="distribution">Linux Distribution specific bug reports</a></h2>
>      <ul>
>        <li>
> -        If you are using official binaries from a <strong>Fedora distribution</strong>, enter
> -        tickets against the <code>Fedora</code> product and the <code>libvirt</code>
> -        component.
> +        If you are using binaries from <strong>Fedora</strong>, enter
> +        tickets against the <code>Fedora</code> product and
> +        the <code>libvirt</code> component.
>          <ul>
>            <li><a href="http://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=libvirt&amp;product=Fedora";>View Fedora libvirt tickets</a></li>
>            <li><a href="http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&amp;component=libvirt";>New Fedora libvirt ticket</a></li>
>          </ul>

Should we also mention the fedora-virt-preview, as a way of seeing if
the bug has been fixed by using a newer build of libvirt without having
to upgrade to newer fedora, and without having to self-build?

What you have is a strict improvement, so even if I had ideas for future
patches, I'm perfectly okay giving this one:

ACK and pushed.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]