Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Monday 29 March 2010 13:38:52 Oliver Falk wrote:
> 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...

Me too. Maybe Open ID support in common Bugzilla instances should work. And I 
said it - if you don't want to report it upstream (even it's upstream bug and 
belongs to upstream Bugzilla) just asked some KDE SIG members to take care. We 
will never say no (except rude replies). I think transparency is what we need, 
not bouncing bugs around - it takes time both reporter and rh/kde assignee and 
leads to slower bug resolution...

Jaroslav 

> -of
> 
> Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert at googlemail.com> schrieb:
> >I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle
> >bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file
> >an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set the bug to NEEDINFO. If
> >the reporter doesn't respond, the bug is closed NOTABUG or WONTFIX. But
> >if the bug has been reported upstream, the Fedora bug gets closed
> >UPSTREAM. Ether way, the bug gets closed, no matter if it was actually
> >fixed or not.
> >
> >IMHO filing bugs upstream is a maintainers duty. We are doing the same
> >in Xfce or I do the same with all my packages. The only exception I make
> >are feature requests, because I cannot support a request that I don't
> >understand or that I am not convinced of. The use of a feature should be
> >discussed upstream with the developers because they are in no way
> >specific to the distribution, but bugs that affect Fedora need to be
> >tracked in Fedora.
> >
> >The wiki says:
> >> Deal with reported bugs in a timely manner
> >> 
> >>       * [...]
> >>       * If there are bugs which you aren't capable of fixing yourself
> >>       
> >>         because they deal with intricacies of the source code which
> >>         you don't fully understand, then you still need to address
> >>         these bugs. It can be helpful to work with the upstream
> >>         maintainer of the code, obtain help from more code-oriented
> >>         people on fedora-devel, or check other distributions for
> >>         patches. Always be sure to post to the bug report what you
> >>         have done so that the reporter knows what it happening and
> >>         what to expect. It is recommended that non-coder packagers
> >>         should find co-maintainers who are familiar with the
> >>         programming language used by their package(s), and can help
> >>         with such bugs as a kind of 'second line support'.
> >
> >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities#Deal_wi
> >th_reported_bugs_in_a_timely_manner
> >
> >The Fedora KDE maintainers and bugzappers already have a KDE bugzilla
> >account, while most of our users don't. Thus it is easier for them to
> >file the bug than it is for the user. The maintainer has to act as a
> >proxy between the reporter and the developer.
> >
> >By closing down the bugs, our bugzilla is effectively rendered useless
> >because there is no way of searching for bugs that affect our KDE
> >packages. Bugzilla is for tracking bugs, not for blindly closing bug
> >reports no matter if they are fixed or not!
> >
> >I'd like the KDE SIG and their bugzappers to reconsider their policy:
> >     1. Forward bugs to the upstream developers
> >     2. Leave bugs open until they are fixed upstream and in Fedora
> >
> >Regards,
> >Christoph

-- 
Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik at redhat.com>
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc.                               http://cz.redhat.com/