mandate of bugzilla (Re: Fedora Logo on the login screen)

[Ray Strode]

Hi,

----- Original Message -----
> There is liability and then there is our
> community responsibility to work with the end-user on any bugs they
> encounter. Fedora bears the latter, and will continue to do so, via
> bugzilla. Obviously, this is without legal guarantees of any sort,
> but to say "No entity is responsible" isn't really accurate.
This is an interesting topic, and perhaps one that should be brought to the more general developer list,
but i'll chime in here.

I see bugzilla has a vehicle for users in the community to contribute to the community by providing insight into how the os is working.
It's a very important service those users provide. It helps us tract where the serious problems are, and it helps us see the impact of bugs.

I don't see bugzilla as obligation for the package owner.  The ratio of packages to package owners, and bugs to package owners is really too big for that to be true.  I'm sure you've heard before and probably even said before the mantra "bugzilla isn't a support forum".  I see it as more of a way for a user to give something back, than it is a way for a user to get something.

Furthermore, most bugs should go upstream. In gnome at least, almost every commit has to have an upstream report associated with it, anyway, so the bugs should really start there.  The exception are bugs that block a release or have a big enough impact that they warrant an asynchronous update.

> Any packager on any component who doesn't make any attempt to address
> bugs in their Fedora component is likely to be removed from that
> package.
That's 100% the wrong way to look at it.  If there isn't enough man power to deal with something, you don't take the man power that's there away. You augment it.  But I don't think the goal post should be every bug triaged, investigated, and fixed. it's not realistic, and it's never been that way.

--Ray