Re: [Xen-devel] Xen bugzilla

[James Bulpin <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 17:06, Nivedita Singhvi wrote:
> 1. The Component field has the following:
>     Guest-OS, Hardware support, hypervisor, tools and unspecified.
> 
>     Would dom0 issues be spread out across the non-GuestOS
>     category?

Hmm, perhaps "Guest-OS" isn't the best name - we wanted that component
to be for operating systems running on Xen, i.e. dom0 and domU. Ideally
we'd have a different field for domU/dom0/both but that doesn't fit in
the bugzilla schema :-(.

My suggestion would be that bugs that are clearly related to a domain
running on Xen, which may only manifest themselves in dom0 get assigned
to "Guest-OS" while bugs that are clearly hardware/driver go in
"hardware support". Anything else can be assigned "unspecified"  - it's
easy to reassign bugs once submitted. Once we see more bugs being
reported we'll get a better idea of how to organise that field.

>     Commonest problems reported:
>       - build/compile/boot

If the compile bug or boot crash was in Xen then under "hypervisor", in
Linux/BSD under "Guest-OS" etc. Anything else can go in unspecified.

>       - configuration of networking/storage devices

Not sure things on this topic would be bugs. We can keep higher-level
stuff like this on the lists.

> 2. The Version field has 2.0, unstable, unspecified.
>     Do you want -testing as a separate category or in the 2.0
>     bucket? Are you going to add the individual releases
>     2.0.4, 2.0.5, etc? The finer granularity in the Version
>     field does make it easier to search - especially once
>     you have a long history :).

We were intending 2.0 to cover the -testing and releases (a 2.0.x is
just a snapshot of 2.0-testing anyway). I guess there is no harm in
having specific releases here as well.

James


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel