Moving away from reporting to RH bugzilla and adopting pure upstream reporting mantra.
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
johannbg at gmail.com
Mon Sep 23 23:21:13 UTC 2013
On 09/23/2013 11:07 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jan Wildeboer (jwildebo at redhat.com) said:
>> How will you track blocker bugs?
>> How can we see a global view of all open bugs? Aggregate from X upstream bug report systems? Which not all are Bugzilla?
>> How can we track critical bugs?
> Additional concerns I'd have above this:
> - Not all things we ship have active upstream bug trackers to fall back on
What do you think that tells us about the thing we are shipping?
> - We still need a way to track Fedora-specific integration & packaging
> concerns, which would likely get closed upstream as 'NOTABUG' for that
Yes we would.
> - What filing downstream gives the Fedora maintainer is a good mechanism
> for knowing what's going on in that package in Fedora. Tracking *all*
> upstream bugs in a bug tracker may not be a good way to do so.
If that bug tracker would have a component field called distribution and
in was fedora that would not be a problem but neither would it if
everybody used the same kind of bug tracker or a global mutual bug
tracker for all distro to use but that could be solved via Fedora tag
line in the bug report itself with relevant upstream.
> Honestly, I think a good dedicated triage team that works to verify and move
> upstream as appropriate works better. But, you know, requires getting and
> keeping such a team.
Quite frankly that has been proven not to work and quite frankly the
packager should be the one playing that middle man ( which is not
working either ).
More information about the test