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

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 03/29/2010 02:11 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Monday 29 March 2010 14:03:51 Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>> 2010/3/29 Michał Piotrowski<mkkp4x4 at gmail.com>:
>>> 2010/3/29 Oliver Falk<oliver at linux-kernel.at>:
>>>> 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...
>>>
>>> I don't see any problem here if KDE SIG just declare "we don't fix KDE
>>> bugs, we just update packages".
>>>
>>> They are not KDE developers, so they don't know how to fix these bugs.
>>
>> This response regardless, as a downstream user of a package, if i
>> report a bug, it's nice to know if it's going to be fixed in a current
>> release or not. Until the upstream bugfix lands in a package
>> downstream, downstream should leave the bug open.
>
> Current Bugzilla policy says CLOSED as UPSTREAM is correct resolution. It's
> just terminology - I would prefer another one - like just UPSTREAM status, or
> ON_DEV UPSTREAM or something similar. CLOSED UPSTREAM does not mean that
> nobody cares! It's still tracked!

Pardon, but I strongly have to disagree with this interpretation.

As a user, having been hit by a bug, "CLOSED UPSTREAM" is nothing but a 
cheap bold lie packagers use as weak excuse to for not being able to fix 
a bug having hit a user.

In other words: "FIXED UPSTREAM" does not fix anything for the user 
struggling with a bug. It only helps the packager to keep his bug 
statistics clean.

Analogous considerations apply to "FIXED RAWHIDE"

Both bugzilla tags should be banned.

Ralf