| Summary: | [TRACKER] Mesa regression tracker | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Mesa | Reporter: | Kenneth Graunke <kenneth> |
| Component: | Other | Assignee: | mesa-dev |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | All | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| i915 platform: | i915 features: | ||
|
Description
Kenneth Graunke
2014-06-05 21:34:54 UTC
I don't know what we were thinking by opening a non-versioned "regression tracker" bug. It's like a meta-bugzilla. Can we stop this? Actually I was contemplating on bringing back the "per release" regression tracker idea which brought us here in the first place. It will give us a clearer picture of the regressions when planning/doing the releasing. How would people feel on the topic ? One small catch is that the regressions reported by the Intel QA might cause spam as they're lacking the "bisected" "regression" keywords and the Product Version is "unspecified". Matt any ideas if we can have these with the original report - who can we speak to about this ? Closing this out as having an "all regressions ever" tracker is useless...it's just a meta-bugzilla. Per-release trackers are more reasonable. At the time of closing, these were open: 44519 66346 70359 71199 77161 77288 78318 87276 89199 90081 90346 And these were closed: 45348 49713 59777 61153 61326 72326 75661 79098 80069 80835 82471 82477 83463 83573 83574 85189 85529 86837 86939 86944 86980 88467 88806 89112 89292 89330 89773 89960 90539 |
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.