Separate Fedora bug tracker?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 13:57 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 10:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 13:23 -0400, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> > > I'm not sure what would be gained by having a fully separate Fedora bug
> > > tracker.  On the other hand, there are definite practical conveniences
> > > to having Fedora and RHEL in the same bug tracker: user accounts are
> > > shared and direct dependencies can be entered among Fedora, RHEL, and
> > > Security Response bugs.
> > 
> > Which most of the time are done wrong, which annoys the crap out of some
> > of us. Me, at least.
> 
> Could you give an example?

RHEL bugs are frequently created as clones of Fedora bugs, and whoever
cloned the bug forgets to clean up behind them. For instance, if you
clone a Fedora bug which blocks F14Blocker to RHEL and forget to clean
up, we wind up with a RHEL bug 'blocking' the Fedora 14 release.

Often clones also leave the CC list intact, meaning a bunch of Fedora
users are suddenly CCed on a high-traffic RHEL bug.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net