Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

[Oliver Falk]

I had similar issues already and I totally agree with Christoph!
The maintainer should not redirect the bugreporter to the upstream bugreporting plattform. I already have plenty of accounts on upstream bugzillas because of exactly this...

-of

Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert at googlemail.com> schrieb:

>I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
>bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
>an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the bug to NEEDINFO. If
>the reporter doesn't respond, the bug is closed NOTABUG or WONTFIX. But
>if the bug has been reported upstream, the Fedora bug gets closed
>UPSTREAM. Ether way, the bug gets closed, no matter if it was actually
>fixed or not.
>
>IMHO filing bugs upstream is a maintainers duty. We are doing the same
>in Xfce or I do the same with all my packages. The only exception I make
>are feature requests, because I cannot support a request that I don't
>understand or that I am not convinced of. The use of a feature should be
>discussed upstream with the developers because they are in no way
>specific to the distribution, but bugs that affect Fedora need to be
>tracked in Fedora.
>
>The wiki says:
>> Deal with reported bugs in a timely manner 
>>       * [...]
>>       * If there are bugs which you aren't capable of fixing yourself
>>         because they deal with intricacies of the source code which
>>         you don't fully understand, then you still need to address
>>         these bugs. It can be helpful to work with the upstream
>>         maintainer of the code, obtain help from more code-oriented
>>         people on fedora-devel, or check other distributions for
>>         patches. Always be sure to post to the bug report what you
>>         have done so that the reporter knows what it happening and
>>         what to expect. It is recommended that non-coder packagers
>>         should find co-maintainers who are familiar with the
>>         programming language used by their package(s), and can help
>>         with such bugs as a kind of 'second line support'.
>
>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Deal_with_reported_bugs_in_a_timely_manner
>
>The Fedora KDE maintainers and bugzappers already have a KDE bugzilla
>account, while most of our users don't. Thus it is easier for them to
>file the bug than it is for the user. The maintainer has to act as a
>proxy between the reporter and the developer. 
>
>By closing down the bugs, our bugzilla is effectively rendered useless
>because there is no way of searching for bugs that affect our KDE
>packages. Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for blindly closing bug
>reports no matter if they are fixed or not!
>
>I'd like the KDE SIG and their bugzappers to reconsider their policy:
>     1. Forward bugs to the upstream developers
>     2. Leave bugs open until they are fixed upstream and in Fedora
>
>Regards,
>Christoph
>
>-- 
>devel mailing list
>devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel