Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 604055
[RFE] review RHEL kexec-tools BZs that applied to Fedora to avoid regression
Last modified: 2012-05-21 09:59:03 EDT
Description of problem:
This is a request for development process improvement that whenever DEV fixed BZs in RHEL that those patches should also be considering for Fedora.
Americo, Linda told me to assign this one to you, so we can probably use it to deal with the rest of patches in RHEL but also need in Fedora here. :)
*** Bug 606596 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 606584 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
do we have a list of patches here that needs forward porting?
Not at the top of my head. Amerigo should know better than me.
Well, this bug isn't useful unless we have a list of such patches. Re-assigning to amerigo since he's taking over the fedora branch.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
We will rewrite mkdumprd in Fedora 16, so this BZ doesn't apply any more and can be closed.
Well, this is still applied. This is a placeholder to review the existing BZ/patches we fixed in RHEL to make sure the Fedora version did not regress on them especially there were tons of corner cases. It is not matter if we rewrite mkdumprd or not, the concept still apply. We should try to avoid the past mistake that Fedora version has one time contained 60+ regression that we had already fixed in RHEL but forgot to fix here.
Then report new bugs, instead of using this BZ with a confusing title.
Sure, there is no need to open another BZ. If you don't like the title, we can always adjust it.
You don't get the point, nor you understand what "rewrite" means.
Take a look at the latest mkdumprd in git, *none* of RHEL patches can be applied. After we finish rewriting, if there are still some bugs you concern, report new BZ as other normal bugs. There is no reason to keep this one, especially when we are rewriting the code for rawhide.
Let's make this a Test Only BZ assigned to one of our testers.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 805784 ***