FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
paul at xelerance.com
Fri Feb 26 19:54:29 UTC 2010
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>> 1) to fix a bug or add a feature the maintainer experienced/uses
> If nobody is complaining about the bug, then fixing the bug can wait
> until the next Fedora release.
Do you have the time to properly report all bugs? I don't, so I have to
pick my battles.
On top of that, as an upstream of Openswan, I can also tell you that a
lot of people report "bugs" to upstream that have been fixed eons ago. It
has gotten so bad, that most of the time I have to say "Upgrade - yes I know
it is the latest debian pacakge but you need to upgrade anyway".
I'd really like Fedora not to go that way.
> If they're willing to debug, why are they not willing to test?
People usually just "need to get the thing done". They are willing to
debug their problem if that might get their work done. They don't often
want to help pre-emptively with testing. Most Openswan tests for new
bugs happen by people compiling from source with a test patch from us,
not by "updates-testing" versions of a distro.
I think there is a clear difference in a pure software bug, as compared
to an "intergration" bug. Firefox not working with pulse is not something
easilly caught before a software release. A protocol implementation fix
for IPsec in openswan more likely is. But an openswan network manager
integration bug is not.
> I agree that making it easier to test packages would be beneficial in a
> wide range of cases.
A quicker way of seeing if a bug report was alread made, and more quickly
being able to report bugs then spending 15-30 with bugzilla would help me
in reporting more bugs. I like the automated crash reporting, though I'm
not sure where they go, as I havent received a single report from them on
any of my +/- 30 packages.
More information about the devel