Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong
loupgaroublond at gmail.com
Mon Mar 29 12:16:55 UTC 2010
2010/3/29 Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com>:
> On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>> 2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4 at gmail.com>:
>> > 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk <oliver at linux-kernel.at>:
>> >> 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...
>> > I don't see any problem here if KDE SIG just declare "we don't fix KDE
>> > bugs, we just update packages".
>> > They are not KDE developers, so they don't know how to fix these bugs.
>> This response regardless, as a downstream user of a package, if i
>> report a bug, it's nice to know if it's going to be fixed in a current
>> release or not. Until the upstream bugfix lands in a package
>> downstream, downstream should leave the bug open.
> Current Bugzilla policy says CLOSED as UPSTREAM is correct resolution. It's
> just terminology - I would prefer another one - like just UPSTREAM status, or
> ON_DEV UPSTREAM or something similar. CLOSED UPSTREAM does not mean that
> nobody cares! It's still tracked!
Sure, it's good to know that it's tracked. Maybe we should think about
modifying the policy to make this more transparent. Perhaps a 'ON HOLD
>> The bug can be used
>> to track an update from bodhi too
> It's used to track in Bodhi.
>> and even suggest to the user that
>> he download a package out of testing to see that it is fixed. Without
>> the maintainers acting as the man in the middle, a potential bug
>> reporter not only has to open an account with the KDE bug tracker, but
>> then he might be asked to download source code, build it on his own,
>> and do a number of other hassles to help upstream out.
>> The maintainers
>> can assist this by helping with test builds and so on. It's their
>> responsibility, otherwise to track the issue upstream, regardless
>> whether they are active developers.
> Usually we do this, we provide testing packages etc. But not only on Fedora
> side but both sides.
Ah cool. Still, it's something that is general to theoretically all
maintainers. I don't want to mandate this, because ultimately
maintainers are volunteers in the end.
More information about the devel