Mesa needs an update?

[Morgan Howe]

On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Jef Spaleta <jspaleta at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Morgan Howe <mthowe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I didn't say you need to bump it to bleeding edge git. I'm just letting
> you
> > know that there's a pretty serious bug in the current version of mesa
> that
> > is affecting at least a few people - probably even more who just rolled
> back
> > to F18 and didn't bother filing a bug report. I'm well aware that a
> version
> > bump might introduce new bugs, but just thought someone might want to
> > consider at least looking into it since a completely broken X is a fairly
> > major issue.
>
> okay im a little confused. You filed it and then closed it as upstream.
>
> How does that help the package maintainer in Fedora keep track of this
> as an outstanding issue to possibly address as an update?
>
> You've short circuited the bug workflow a bit by jumping the gun and
> marking your own issue as resolved.  I believe the intent with regard
> to the UPSTREAM resolution in our bugzilla workflow is for
> "maintainers" to use to mark as resolved with the intention of pulling
> new upstream release and pushing it as an update some time soonish.
> If as the reporter you mark it as resolved, you've greatly reduced the
> chance that a maintainer is going to notice the bug as still
> outstanding. So you might want to rethink how you handled this report.


That may have been a mistake on my part due to lack of knowledge on your
bugzilla workflow, apologies for that. I haven't filed a bug report before
and wasn't sure how that should be handled. I've reassigned the bug from
xorg-x11-drv-ati to mesa, but I can't seem to reopen (only assign) the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130802/08b2dac8/attachment.html>