Upstream first? [Was: Re: The future of how to debug pages]

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 09/26/2012 10:08 AM, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 05:25:06AM -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
>> In my opinion this should be a maintainer choice. Ideally there would be a support for this choice in Bugzilla. When reporting a new bug against component X, "bug reporting guidelines" would be displayed (Launchpad already supports this). The guidelines can say "Please report all your bugs here" (or be empty), or they can also say "If you bug looks like this, it is a probably packaging bug, report it here. If you bug looks like that, it is possibly an upstream bug, please report it at URL".
>>
>> Why this should be a maintainer choice? Because it is his time and energy investment. Speaking for myself, I would be willing to package and maintain some great packages for Fedora, but only if I don't have to do a "full support", but just "packaging support". I don't have time nor knowledge for full-fledged support for various projects. So here's the choice - either we give the decision to maintainers and we might have a lot of software packaged in Fedora, or we force them to do full support, and we will have just the most common software in Fedora (but "perfectly" supported </irony>).
>>
> I'd rather have limited set of packages that are well supported with
> bugzillas acted upon than load of packages where bugzillas are all NEW
> or UPSTREAM.
>

The only way for an reporter to guarantee to get his bug acted upon is 
for him to report it directly upstream and upstream will then close it 
NOTABUG if it's distribution specific bug.

There is absolutely nothing bad with maintainers setting UPSTREAM status 
in bugs since it simply means the bug was taken upstream and the 
standard practice when you do that is comment as well the bug number in 
the upstream bug tracker for the reporter to monitor then they simply 
close the bug once the fix has reached downstream

JBG